Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Call-Up (Deferments)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Labour what exceptions there are to the National Service call-up to the Armed Forces.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): Apart from the special classes of persons listed in the First Schedule to the National Service Act, 1948, no young man of military age is excepted from liability to National Service. Extended deferment is, however, granted in the national interest to men employed in certain coalmining occupations, to regular agricultural workers born before 1933, to merchant seamen, to fishermen who are members of the Royal Naval Reserve (Patrol Service), and to a very few highly qualified scientists and engineers engaged on certain projects of the first importance and urgency.
Such men are only protected from call-up while engaged on the work in question, and if they leave their employment before reaching the age of 26 they become available for call-up. All other deferments are for a limited period, at the end of which the men are required, if medically fit, to carry out their National Service obligations.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that we in this country can ill afford the luxury, both in the case of the Exchequer and of the time of the Services, of training men for a considerable time when, in many cases, they will not, in any circumstances, and quite rightly, be required to serve during an emergency?

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say what evidence he has that people who are deferred avoid the call-up when it actually comes?

Sir W. Monckton: If I may first reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt), I appreciate the necessity of not wasting manpower and I shall endeavour so to administer my job as to avoid that. So far as possible, there is no escape by protracted deferment.
In reply to the second question, I would say that agricultural workers, who are very much concerned with some deferment, have not reached the age at which we can possibly say they have escaped it. With regard to deferment for educational purposes, steps are taken to see that call-up is not avoided.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the facts of the case of Mr. Pearce, 24, King's Road, Reading, details of which have been sent to him, whose application for postponement of call-up on compassionate grounds has been rejected; and if he will now exercise his discretion and refer this case to the umpire.

Sir W. Monckton: I have considered this case very carefully, but I can find no grounds for making an appeal to the umpire against the unanimous decision of the Military Service (Hardship) Committee.

Mr. Bennett: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the grounds on which this young man originally got a compassionate discharge from his call-up were the mortal and incurable diseases of his parents, and as those circumstances clearly have not altered except for the worse in the meanwhile, how can it be that grounds which were originally found to be sufficient for compassionate discharge are now found to be insufficient for a compassionate deferment?

Sir W. Monckton: My hon. Friend will be aware that so far as my jurisdiction is concerned I cannot exempt a man permanently. I can only, on the ground of hardship, postpone his call-up or re-call, as the case may be, to enable him to make other arrangements.

Service Period

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the fact that a large and growing number of men performing National Service are wasting their time after 12 months; and if he will take immediate action to halve the present period of service.

Sir W. Monckton: The answer to both parts of the Question is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Craddock: Is the Minister aware that a growing number of members of the Forces are of the opinion that having done 12 months' service they are largely wasting their time? I think that this is a matter which ought to be looked into, and that a reduction of military service should take place before long.

Mr. Shinwell: Why does the Minister give a negative reply to this Question, in view of the fact that only this week, in reply to a written Question, the Secretary of State for War stated that at a large camp in the North of England 10 per cent. of the National Servicemen were acting as officers' servants?

Sir W. Monckton: I have answered the Question to the best of my ability. According to such information as I have, there is not a lot of waste of time after the 12 months. I have some reason to know that myself.

Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that a large number of these National Service men are giving valuable service to this country in Korea and Malaya?

Sir W. Monckton: indicated assent.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Minister aware that the present Prime Minister and all who sit on the benches opposite talked for six years about setting the people free, and does he not think that so long as there is two years' conscription in this country all that talk of setting the people free was humbug on their part?

Voluntary Service (Encouragement)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour if Her Majesty's Government will abolish conscription in 1953 and encourage voluntary service by granting adequate pay and conditions.

Sir W. Monckton: With regard to the first part of the Question I would refer

the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 18th November. The suggestion made in the last part of the Question has already been carried out.

Mr. Craddock: Is this not a most important matter in view of the fact that National Service legislation comes to an end in 1953, and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the Government might give very serious consideration to this matter now?

Mr. G. Thomas: Will the Minister take an opportunity of giving considerable advance notice of any change, so that the young people may make their arrangements accordingly and industrialists who now complain of the loss of manpower may readjust their plans?

Sir W. Monckton: I said on the occasion to which I have drawn attention that I would give notice as early as I could.

Mr. Shinwell: Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when the review of the National Service Act is to take place? Is he not aware that it has been established that men can be trained in six months and do not require any further training; and does he not also know that when his party were on this side of the House their policy was a six months' period of conscription. recruitment for the Regular Army and increased rates of pay? Why is that not being carried out now?

Sir W. Monckton: I think there is no question at all that there is a need for these men until and unless our commitments are reduced. As the matter stands at present, they are required.

Mr. Shinwell: What have commitments to do with it?

Sir W. Monckton: It has to do with the commitments; indeed, it has.

Smallholders

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will include on the Military Service (Hardship) committees a representative of smallholders in all areas where smallholders may be liable for call-up under the National Service Act.

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. These committees decide applications for post-ponement of call-up according to principles of general application laid down in


Regulations, and the members of the committee, other than the chairman, called to a particular sitting are selected from a panel without regard to the occupations of the applicants whose cases are to be heard.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is particular hardship in the case of young men, who have or who are about to have a smallholding, in view of the fact that the economics of a smallholding do not allow them to hire alternative labour to work for them while they are away. Will he ask the hardship committees to take particular notice of these cases if representatives of the smallholders cannot be included on these committees, because we on this side of the House know that many cases of hardship are involved?

Sir W. Monckton: There may be some confusion between postponement on hardship grounds and deferment. If my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to deferment, I will see whether anything can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Remploy Factories

Mr. F. Anderson: asked the Minister of Labour how many seriously disabled persons, eligible, and suitable for employment at the Remploy factory, Cleator Moor, are awaiting employment; and the reasons for their non-employment thereat.

Sir W. Monckton: The number of unemployed registered disabled persons eligible for consideration for employment in the Cleator Moor Remploy factory was 37 at 15th September, 1952, although they are not necessarily all suitable for jobs which may become available in the factory.
I am informed by the company that six will be taken on shortly. The present factory will then be fully manned.

Mr. F. Anderson: asked the Minister of Labour the position of the building of the new factory at Cleator Moor for Remploy, Ltd.

Sir W. Monckton: I understand that Remploy, Ltd. are now preparing plans for a new factory to be built as soon as possible in the next financial year, to replace the present unsatisfactory building.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that in February he said that this matter was to be reconsidered at the end of the year? Is he also aware that the plans have already been prepared and, I understand, passed, and the site prepared and everything, by the Cumberland development authority? What is preventing the work on this factory going on?

Sir W. Monckton: As I said, we have made some provision for this factory in the next financial year, and the answer I gave was after consideration of the communications of the Remploy factory itself, and to the best of my knowledge they are correct.

Mr. Anderson: By "the next financial year" does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean in April of next year—or when does the next financial year commence?

Sir W. Monckton: I did mean April.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to be able sub-stantially to increase the number of disabled persons employed in Remploy factories in the North-East Development Area.

Sir W. Monckton: Until Remploy, Ltd., have consolidated their trading position, recruitment for all their factories will be limited mainly to replacement of wastage through various causes. It is unlikely that there will be any substantial increase in the number employed in the North-East Development Area.

Mr. Wiley: While fully realising the right hon. and learned Gentleman's sympathetic interest in this matter, may I ask him whether he appreciates that in the heavy industrial areas there is a high incidence of disabled people, and that it is widely felt that these factories could and ought to provide employment for more disabled workers?

Sir W. Monckton: The figure I am given for those who might be helped in this way is 703, 521 of whom are in 10 Remploy factories in the area. The estimated capacity of those factories is 615. That will show the hon. Gentleman the size of the problem.

Machinery (Safety Precautions)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that it has been held, in the case of Parvin v. Morton Machine Company Limited, that


machines which are being made, repaired, or adapted for sale, are not machinery or plant within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1937; and whether he will take steps to introduce legislation to rectify the position so that Sections 14 (1), 16, and 20 of that Act, which relate to the fencing of machinery and the cleaning of it by women and young persons, shall apply to such machinery.

Sir W. Monckton: As was pointed out in the Court of Session, the application of the particular Sections mentioned to machinery which is being made, repaired, or altered and is not part of the factory equipment would involve serious practical difficulties.
I do not, however, understand the decision in Parvin's case to imply that appropriate statutory precautions in connection with such manufacture, repair or alteration cannot be required under the Factories Acts.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look further into this matter, because already, as I understand, in Leicester and other places compensation is being refused to people who have sustained injuries in consequence of machinery not coming within the terms referred to in court, which is creating a very anomalous and serious position, particularly for those who are compelled by employers to work on that kind of machinery?

Sir W. Monckton: The difficulties, which the hon. Gentleman will remember were pointed out by Lord Jameson in the Court of Session, are there, but Section 60 of the Factories Act, 1937, enables special regulations to be made, and that would not be prevented by anything that has been said in Parvin's case. The point is whether it is appropriate to make such regulations, and in the light of the report I have had from my Chief Inspector of Factories I doubt whether it is possible.

Mr. Pannell: Does the Minister appreciate that this decision has caused considerable dismay to the trade unions in the engineering industry, and is completely contrary to anything they had understood with regard to the law; and will he take it from me that I have been requested, particularly by the Amalgamated Engineering Union, who have nearly 900,000 members interested—

[HON. MEMBERS: Oh."] I wish hon. Gentlemen opposite would not interrupt when I am asking a very important question. Will the Minister bear in mind the extreme dismay and perturbation caused in engineering circles by this and give anxious attention to it, and possibly make a statement at an early date?

Sir W. Monckton: I appreciate that there are those who are worried about there being no cover in these particular circumstances, but I would point out that the courts and judges took the same view. I would like both hon. Gentlemen to consider that powers under Section 60 of the Factories Act do exist to cover a case like this. If they will bring any matter to my attention about which they consider I ought to make a regulation, I will bear it in mind.

Mr. Janner: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I shall have to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Bradford

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed, part-time and full-time, were registered at the Bradford Employment Exchange for the week ended 29th November, 1952; and the comparative figures for the same period last year.

Sir W. Monckton: One thousand four hundred and eighty-two wholly unemployed and 421 temporarily stopped at 10th November, 1952, the latest date for which figures are available. The corresponding figures at 12th November, 1951, were 1,172 and 1,666, respectively.

Mr. Craddock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that 500 discharges have taken place in recent weeks in the motor industry; that comparative figures prove that the number has gone up; and will he look into this matter more seriously?

Sir W. Monckton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I did look at it seriously, but I will do so again.

Scotland

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Labour the total figure, to the latest date, of unemployment in Scotland, stating in which counties and cities the percentage is heaviest; and what percentage the overall figure bears to that of England.

Sir W. Monckton: Seventy-two thousand one hundred and thirty-five or 3.4 per cent. at 10th November. The counties with the highest percentages of unemployment were Zetland, covered by Lerwick Employment Exchange, 15.8 per cent.; Bute, covered by Rothesay Employment Exchange, 14.3 per cent.; and Ross and Cromarty, covered by Invergordon, Stornoway and Tain Employment Exchanges, 11.6 per cent. Of the four cities, Glasgow had the highest percentage, 3.8 per cent.
The unemployment percentage for England in November corresponding to the percentage of 3.4 for Scotland was 1.7.

Mrs. Mann: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that these figures are likely to be higher; that January always provides the highest figure of any month in the year in Scotland; and could he indicate what action he is taking to ensure some reduction of unemployment in Scotland?

Sir W. Monckton: The hon. Lady will understand that my task is rather to see that we find work for people, so far as we can, through the employment exchanges, and that I shall endeavour to do.

Captain Pilkington: Is it not a fact that a large number of Scotsmen with very good sense have come to this country for their employment?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that most Scots people want to work near their own home, and would he consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether something more could be done with a view to attracting industries to Scotland? There is a suspicion in Scotland that the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply are not too enthusiastic about responding to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request for more work in Scotland.

Sir W. Monckton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not include me among those who do not take this into account. I will consult on this with my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Was the remark that people come to this place for personal employment not a reflection on you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I can see nothing derogative in the reflection.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many employment exchanges there are in Scotland; how many of these exchanges record a rate of unemployment of more than 20 per cent., 10 per cent. to 20 per cent., 5 per cent. to 10 per cent., 3 per cent. to 5 per cent., and under 3 per cent., respectively, on the latest date for which figures are available; and what are the corresponding figures for the last two years;
(2) in which areas of Scotland the incidence of unemployment is heaviest among women and girls under 18 years of age, respectively.

Sir W. Monckton: There are 212 employment exchanges and youth employment offices in Scotland. I regret that it is not possible to undertake the very large amount of work involved in computing percentage rates of unemployment for all these offices. The numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of each employment exchange are, however, available and I will send the hon. Member a table giving the figures for November, 1950, 1951 and 1952.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister say how many employment exchanges have an unemployment figure of more than 20 per cent.? Is he aware that the unemployment figure which he gave in answer to a previous Question shows an increase of about 4,000 for last month; and in view of the fact that unemployment in Scotland is consistently higher than in the rest of Britain, will he give an undertaking that he will impress upon the Government the need for extra special measures in Scotland to remedy that situation?

Sir W. Monckton: I am aware of the disparity to which the hon. Member refers, and I will do what I can to combat it. As to the percentage, the difficulty is that without undue work I cannot get the top figures from all these exchanges in order to express the figure as a percentage.

Mr. McInnes: Can the Minister say what special action he has in view for dealing with the problem in Scotland?

Sir W. Monckton: In my Department I have no special means apart from the means which I try to employ everywhere. Where we find employment, I try to find the workers to fill the posts.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour what effects the recently-announced reduction in the arms programme will have on employment in Scotland.

Sir W. Monckton: The full effects of the changes in the defence programme cannot be judged until the details have been worked out, but as far as can be seen there is not likely to be any reduction in the total numbers employed in Scotland on that account. Certain Scottish factories engaged on main contracts will still need to take on more labour.

Mr. Hamilton: Does that answer mean that the Minister is now giving us an assurance that, as a result of the reduction in the armaments programme, there will be no increase of unemployment in Scotland over the next 12 months or two years?

Sir W. Monckton: When the hon. Gentleman sees my answer be will see that, so far as can be judged at present, the total number of employed people will not be reduced by this change in the armaments programme.

Mr. Hamilton: May I take it that the Prime Minister's statement to the effect that there would be local difficulties does not apply to Scotland?

Disabled Persons

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Labour the terms of reference to the committee proposed to be set up to consider the claims of disabled persons; and to give due consideration to the plight and handicap of haemophiliacs.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to be able to publish the full terms of reference of the inquiry into the employment of disabled persons; and how soon he anticipates that the committee will begin work.

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to announce the composition of the proposed committee on the employment of the disabled.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Labour the composition and the terms of reference of the committee which is to inquire into the position of disabled persons and their employment.

Sir W. Monckton: I hope to be able to make an announcement early in the New Year.

Mrs. Mann: That does not cover the latter part of my Question, which concerns the handicap of haemophilia. As haemophiliacs in Britain are just nobody's bairns, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give them special consideration in the terms of reference to the new committee?

Sir W. Monckton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing my attention, as she has done before, to some paper which she has put before me about this matter. I will see to it that it is put before the committee.

Mr. Nicholson: What are the dimensions of this problem?

Labour Attachés, Yugoslavia and Turkey

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the necessity of appointing labour attachés in Yugoslavia and Turkey; and with what result.

Sir W. Monckton: I keep the need for posts of labour attachés under review jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The possibility of appointments to the two posts mentioned will be kept in mind for consideration when financial conditions permit.

Mr. Gibson: Does the Minister appreciate the very significant developments in both countries, particularly in trade union and labour matters; and would it not be a good thing to have in these countries men or women skilled and knowledgeable in trade union and labour matters to advise the Foreign Office, particularly in view of the new developments that are taking place?

Sir W. Monckton: I am aware of the field for work, and as soon as limitations of economy are removed from me I will bear that suggestion in mind.

North-East Development Area

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed men, women, boys and girls in the North-East Development Area in the years 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951.

Sir W. Monckton: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Murray: Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in possession of those figures, would he be kind enough to give us an idea of the unemployment in the North-East area? Can he say whether it is increasing or decreasing?

Sir W. Monckton: I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me from doing more than saying that if he looks at these figures he will find that from 1948 the figure has varied from 28,000, up to 31,000, back to 24,000, and is now 26,500.

NUMBERS OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS ON THE REGISTERS OF EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES IN THE NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT AREA AT THE UNDERMENTIONED DATES


Date
Men aged 18 and over
Boys under 18
Women aged 18 and over
Girls under 18
Total


15th November, 1948
…
…
20,857
315
6,869
386
28,427


14th November, 1949
…
…
23,083
486
7,134
561
31,264


13th November, 1950
…
…
19,537
472
8,302
549
28,860


12th November, 1951
…
…
14,077
441
9,170
797
24,485


10th November, 1952
…
…
14,922
405
10,467
768
26,562

Day Nurseries, Willesden

Mr. Orbach: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that 70 mothers have been informed that they must remove their children from the Willesden day nurseries; that most of these mothers are engaged in work for which there is a shortage of labour; and what steps he is taking to make good this shortage.

Sir W. Monckton: If these women withdraw from their present employment, no special difficulties are anticipated in providing workers to replace them. Employers should notify their vacancies to the employment exchange.

Mr. Orbach: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this Question simply pinpoints what will become a big issue in Middlesex? Would he not nudge his right hon. Friend sitting on his left, the Minister of Health, who passed the buck to the Middlesex County

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. As this information is published regularly every month in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," why was this Question allowed on the Order Paper?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, are you not aware that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is often querying the authority of the Table and of yourself in admitting Questions? Is it not a fact that if the Table and yourself admit Questions they must of necessity be in order?

Mr. Murray: Would it not be possible to appoint the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) Clerk of the Table?

Following is the reply:

The table gives the figures for November of each year.

Council, and urge him to see whether something could not be done? Hundreds of women will be forced to leave employment as a result of the closing of day nurseries, or of the increased charges made, in this area. I ask him to take note of what will happen to production in this area.

Sir W. Monckton: I take note of that, but I think the hon. Member realises that the buck was not really, if I may say so, on my plate.

Mr. Beswick: May I ask the Minister if he would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to send me the list of female vacancies in Middlesex, as he promised me last week, and whether that list will not show that there is a considerable number of vacancies within the county? Does he not think that it is treating this matter rather lightly when he says that it really does not matter if these people have to give up their employment, although there is dislocation for the employees and the industries which they have to leave?

Sir W. Monckton: I only intended to say that we were in a position to provide workers to replace these people, and that that really was my consideration in the matter.

Liverpool and Merseyside

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Labour to publish in HANSARD a table of figures and trades showing the unemployment figures in Liverpool, separately, and the area covered by the Merseyside Development Area for the latest obtainable date; and the figures for the same date in 1949, 1950 and 1951.

NUMBERS OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (a) IN LIVERPOOL AND (b) IN THE MERSEYSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA AT THE UNDERMENTIONED DATES



Liverpool (including Bootle)
Merseyside Development Area


Industry
14th Nov., 1949
13th Nov., 1950
12th Nov., 1951
10th Nov., 1952
14th Nov., 1949
13th Nov., 1950
12th Nov., 1951
10th Nov., 1952


Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing
1,976
1,436
761
1,379
2,735
1,722
902
1,627


Non-Electrical Engineering
409
450
264
796
480
499
306
845


Hollow-ware
231
218
142
271
242
225
148
281


Tailoring
88
71
641
207
101
92
697
263


Food and Drink Industries
946
888
799
1,505
1,105
1,097
996
1,876


Rubber
198
191
1,008
425
205
194
1,016
434


Building
1,870
1,420
868
1,757
2,256
1,592
1,015
2,043


Civil Engineering Contracting
452
330
231
402
574
404
296
502


Sea Transport
2,301
1,920
1,536
2,302
2,540
2,109
1,720
2,491


All other Transport and Communication
1,765
1,546
1,034
1,669
2,082
1,799
1,199
1,908


Distributive Trades
1,509
1,489
1,238
2,070
1,908
1,866
1,589
2,516


National Government Service
536
457
332
406
651
537
399
470


Local Government Service
569
523
346
443
726
659
453
588


Medical and Dental Services
201
224
162
248
298
357
271
372


Theatres, Cinemas, Music Halls, Concerts, etc.
176
202
159
221
236
263
209
299


Sport, Other Recreations and Betting
700
517
369
523
944
696
505
649


Catering, Hotels, etc.
1,545
1,396
1,197
1,777
1,943
1,864
1,544
2,195


All other Industries and Services
5,283
4,159
3,528
5,659
6,353
5,148
4,347
6,760


Total—All Industries and Services
20,755
17,437
14,615
22,060
25,379
21,123
17,612
26,119

Mr. Collick: asked the Minister of Labour the number of workers unemployed on Merseyside; the number in the corresponding period in 1951; and what steps he is taking to ensure their full employment.

Sir W. Monckton: A total of 26,119 persons were registered as unemployed on 10th November, 1952, compared with 17,612 on 12th November, 1951. The employment exchanges are doing all they can to place these workers in other employment and, as the hon. Member no doubt knows, a number of new factories

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Braddock: As the unemployment situation in Liverpool is very difficult and the figures are readily available, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make arrangements for the figures to be sent every three months to hon. Members representing the Merseyside area?

Sir W. Monckton: I will look into that suggestion sympathetically.

Following is the information:

and extensions to existing factories are now in course of construction in this area.

Mr. Collick: Is the Minister aware of the growing concern on Merseyside arising from this very large increase in unemployment in the last 12 months? Is he aware that the figure is now approaching 6 per cent., which is about three times the average for the rest of England? Will he not consult his colleagues at the Board of Trade and the Treasury in order to speed up the development of new factories, particularly on the Birkenhead side of the Mersey?

Sir W. Monckton: The figure which I received most recently was 4.4 per cent., but I agree that that is much higher than one wants to see and we are doing all we can to get these new factories and extensions to factories. I will endeavour to continue that course.

D. C. Thomson, Dundee (Printers' Re-instatement)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Labour to make a further statement on the dispute between the National Society of Operative Printers and Assistants and the firm of D. C. Thomson.

Sir W. Darling: On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir, for an hon. Member, without disclosing his interest, to put on the Order Paper a Question relating to a rival newspaper?

Mr. Speaker: I was not aware that there was any concealment of interest here.

Sir W. Monckton: The answer to the Question is as follows: I regret that it has still not been possible to arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement regarding the re-instatement by the firm of any of the men who came out on strike at Glasgow last April. I am considering whether there is any further way by which an amicable solution of this outstanding question may be sought.

Mr. Thomson: While thanking the Minister for his reply and appreciating the efforts that he has made, may I ask if he is aware that the 77 men will have been out on strike for eight months tomorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were locked out."] Can the Minister tell the House what action has been taken by the Prime Minister, following his meetings with the Trades Union Congress? If the Minister has no legal authority to operate in this matter, will he use his moral authority to tell the public plainly that the unions concerned in this case have acted with good citizenship and that the firm has acted with stupid obstinacy?

Sir W. Monckton: The steps which have been taken have been to make approaches which I do not want to specify at this stage because some are still continuing, but it has been done through me and my Department on the

instructions of the Prime Minister, and I am still hoping to produce a better result.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not time that this grim old warrior got some of the milk of human kindness on the approach of Christmas and remembered that the homes of 77 families are being jeopardised because of his stupid obstinacy in adhering to practices which are 100 years out of date?

Sir W. Monckton: We ought to bear in mind that perhaps the principal matter which was in dispute in those days was the question whether a man should be called upon to give an undertaking not to belong to a union, and on that, at any rate, one can say that we have succeeded in getting a different result. One should bear that in mind, because it was the main point in dispute.

Sir W. Darling: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take advantage of the Christmas season to try to bring an end to the vendetta which is being waged against the "Dundee Advertiser" by rival newspapers and by political opponents, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who cannot conceal their hatred of a free and independent Scottish newspaper and its proprietors?

West Ham

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed at the latest convenient stated date; and how this compares with the previous two months and with similar dates in 1951, nationally and for the county borough of West Ham, respectively.

Sir W. Monckton: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Are the general figures up or down? If they are down we shall be very pleased to hear it, but if they are up, will he give the reasons for the increase and say what action the Government intend to take to reduce the number of unemployed?

Sir W. Monckton: The figures for England as a whole are already known to the hon. Member; anyhow, they have been published. The figures for West Ham show a tendency much the same as the general figures; they have risen slightly during the last month.

Following is the information:

NUMBERS OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED (a) IN GREAT BRITAIN AND (b) AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES IN THE BOROUGH OF WEST HAM AT THE UNDERMENTIONED DATES



Great Britain
West Ham


Date
Wholly Unemployed
Temporarily Stopped
Total
Wholly Unemployed
Temporarily Stopped
Total


17th September, 1951
203,952
13,076
217,028
675
164
839


15th October, 1951
234,454
29,302
263,756
931
268
1,199


12th November, 1951
254,207
36,270
290,477
1,018
259
1,277


15th September, 1952
326,513
63,107
389,620
1,087
68
1,155


13th October, 1952
350,671
47,222
397,893
1,558
32
1,590


10th November, 1952
370,150
36,216
406,366
1,663
33
1,696

Redundancy, Leeds

Mr. Pannell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a fortnight ago 268 workers were put off as redundant at Messrs. Fowler & Company, of Hunslet Road, Leeds; that last week 42 workers were discharged at Messrs. David Brown, Tractors, at Yardley; and whether he will give consideration to this growing unemployment in the Leeds district with a view to finding these men alternative employment in the area.

Sir W. Monckton: I am aware of the redundances to which the hon. Member refers and am glad to say that the majority of the workers who registered at the exchanges mainly concerned are now in other employment.
There are reasonable prospects of finding alternative work for the remainder and the employment exchanges will continue to do everything possible to help them.

Mr. Pannell: As there is a belief in engineering circles in the City of Leeds that there is a degree of recession in the industry, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the unemployment figures compare favourably or unfavourably with those in comparable cities?

Sir W. Monekton: The only figure I have immediately available which gives a comparison is the following: the wholly unemployed and temporarily stopped workers registered at Leeds, Armley, Stanningley and Horsforth local offices on 10th November represented 1.9 per cent. of the total insured employees compared with 2 per cent. for the country as a whole.

Personal Cases

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Minister of Labour why the application of the boy from Embo, in the county of Sutherland, whose name is known to him, for assistance to train while living away from home in Glasgow, made on 17th October, still remains undecided while the important shipbuilding and engineering firm who are prepared to accept him as an apprentice are deprived of his services and the boy of his training.

Sir W. Monckton: The delay was due to difficulty in arranging the necessary interview, which finally took place on 9th December, after four previous attempts had failed for various reasons, including weather, illness of the boy and the distance involved. I understand that the conditions of the Special Aptitudes Scheme are not fulfilled and I regret, therefore, that the application must fail.

Sir D. Robertson: As the distance between Embo and Wick or Thurso is very short, is it unreasonable to expect that a greater effort might have been made to interview the boy? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the boy and his parents turned up for an arranged meeting but that the appointment was not kept by the officials?

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir, I did not know that, but I did know that one appointment could not be kept because of the boy's illness.

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Minister of Labour why it was necessary for a representative from the National Institute of Houseworkers Centre, Bridge of Allan, to make the expensive journey to Wick to discuss with the Director of


Education the placing of a girl from that county; if this is the regular practice; and why matters of this kind are not dealt with by letter or telephone.

Sir W. Monckton: My hon. Friend must be under some misapprehension as I am assured by the Institute that no such journey for the purpose suggested has been undertaken.

Sir D. Robertson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my assurance that I have in my hand a letter dated 9th December from the Director of Education in Caithness, which I will pass to him, stating:
The question of Uplands was raised on the occasion of a visit from their representative in connection with the placing of a girl from this county"?

Sir W. Monckton: The only occasion I have heard of was in March this year, which was a visit for that purpose and other purposes as well.

Dock Workers

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour what objections he has received from unions catering for dock workers to the recently-announced dock workers release scheme; and how many dock workers have claimed their release under this scheme at the latest convenient stated date nationally and in the Royal group of docks, respectively.

Sir W. Monckton: No representations about the release scheme have been made to me by any of the unions concerned.
I should prefer to wait until the scheme has been running a little longer before attempting to assess the response to it.

Mr. Lewis: Many dockers have been out of work for some months now. Surely there has been adequate time, in view of the weeks that have gone by, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to let us know how many have availed themselves of this scheme. Can he give us some information, even if it is only on an interim basis?

Sir W. Monckton: The House will realise that it is not my scheme but the scheme of the Dock Labour Board. It is the Board's view that they should have a little longer in order to see how the scheme works. I know that more than 100 have availed themselves of the scheme already.

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour how far dock workers who elect to have their names entered on the dormant section of the workers' register will be subject to the Notification of Vacancies Order.

Sir W. Monckton: Dock workers who have been granted temporary release under the recently-announced scheme will, like other workers, be free to seek and obtain their own employment, but employers who wish to engage them must comply with the requirements of the Notification of Vacancies Order.

Mr. Lee: What would be the effect if one of the dockers were again to change his employment? Would he be free during the whole period before he made his final decision? Would he be free to keep on changing his employment without coming under the provisions of the Order?

Sir W. Monckton: On changing his employment I think he would come under the provisions, but it applies in only a restricted way to the employer and not to him.

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that contained in the explanation of the release scheme for dockers there appears a statement by the General Manager and Secretary of the National Dock Labour Board that a careful survey of the future trend of imports and exports makes it obvious that for some time to come no great improvement in the present level of dock work is to be expected; and on what calculations this statement is based.

Sir W. Monckton: I have nothing to add to the answers that I gave to a number of supplementary questions on this subject in the House on 4th December.

Mr. Lee: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that when we see on the back of the release scheme form itself that the General Manager has told the dockers that there is no prospect of the docks industry being able to expand to its previous level, what, in effect, is being said is that trade in the foreseeable future will continue to sag and that our export and import position cannot possibly improve again? If that is so, would he not agree that the Government have a tremendous task in front of them to alter that situation?

Sir W. Monckton: The Government certainly have a tremendous job of work in front of them, but I would point out that the observations which the hon. Gentleman is construing are the observations of the Board, taking into account all the information which they have.

"Daily Graphic" (Transfer of Ownership)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour if he will intervene in the industrial dispute which has arisen as a result of the transfer of ownership of the "Daily Graphic" newspaper.

Sir W. Monckton: According to my information there is no industrial dispute arising from the transfer of ownership of the "Daily Graphic."

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While any dispute there has been avoided, thanks to the restraint of the staff, which has justifiably expressed anger and distress in other ways, is the Minister aware that only two or three days before the transfer took place Lord Kemsley gave a written assurance to the trade union representatives concerned that there was no substance whatsoever in stories that the transfer was about to take place? Does the Minister think it is really conducive to good industrial relations that men should be treated as chattels in this way, with such a contemptuous regard of the need for joint consultation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say something about the need for a better standard of behaviour in future on the part of this employer and other employers?

Sir W. Monekton: I have already told the House that no dispute in this case has come to me at all, and my information—and I am not surprised to have it—is that the trade unions most concerned have expressed their willingness to cooperate with those who are making the change in the making of it.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, your predecessor frequently ruled that hon. Members are responsible for the accuracy of the statements they make in their Questions. This Question alleges that there is an "industrial dispute." The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) has

said that there is no dispute. What penalty is imposed upon an hon. Member who makes an inaccurate statement?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is, "None."

Mr. Isaacs: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is, in fact, no dispute between the unions and the firms concerned? Does he not agree that people should not interfere in these internal difficulties?

Sir W. Monckton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Defence Production Programme (Reduction)

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will invite the National Joint Advisory Council to recommend methods by which the level of armament production can be reduced with a minimum of disorganisation within the firms whose programmes are affected.

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. The appropriate Departments are already in consultation with the firms concerned to try and minimise the disturbance to production and employment within the limits set by the revised defence programme.

Mr. Lee: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Advisory Council consists of experts from both sides of the industry who had quite a lot to do with the way in which the rearmament programme was drawn up some time ago, and that people from the Departments concerned cannot pretend to be experts in this sort of field? Will he therefore look at the matter again to ensure that the way in which this is done does not involve any growth of unemployment in the course of slowing down the programme?

Sir W. Monckton: This raises rather a technical production question and, although I am always anxious to get any help I can from the Council, I doubt whether they could give specific help on this question.

Workers (Trade Union Choice)

Viscount Cranborne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will re-examine the Industrial Disputes Order, No. 1376, with a view to ensuring that a worker's freedom to choose his trade union is effectively protected where a dispute arises.

Sir W. Monckton: The Industrial Disputes Order, 1951, does not interfere in any way with the worker's freedom to choose a trade union.

Viscount Cranborne: Would the Minister agree that, as a result, workers are forced to join a union as provided by agreement with the industry concerned? Further, is he not aware that certain sections among the bus workers in this country are denied the facilities of obtaining a peaceful settlement of their grievances and, as a result, of exercising their freedom of choice in selecting their own trade union?

Sir W. Monckton: I think my noble Friend is wrong in saying that anyone is forced to join a trade union. As far as the Question concerns this Order in general, it must be the policy that we should not try to dictate to industry with whom their negotiations should be conducted. We should do what we can to support the negotiating machinery which exists, believing that the principle is voluntary negotiation and agreement.

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. Should not the noble Lord declare his own interest in the trade union to which he belongs?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Viscount Cranborne: asked the Minister of Labour whether Her Majesty's Government will introduce a measure to preserve effectively the right of the individual to choose freely his, or her, trade union.

Sir W. Monckton: In this country, workers are already free to join trade unions of their choice. It would be contrary to long standing practice of successive Governments in this country to deal with questions of this kind by legislation.

Viscount Cranborne: Is the Minister not aware that if he pursues his policy it will enable the Trades Union Congress to establish a closed shop throughout industry in this country?

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. If I were of that opinion I should want to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if there is an industry or profession to which the

principle of the closed shop applies it is the profession which he himself adorned before he became a Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Prescription Charges and Forms

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health the number of prescription forms issued in September, 1951, and 1952; the number of prescriptions per form; and the average cost per form for the two periods.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): The number of forms issued in England and Wales in September, 1951, was 10,278,213; the average number of prescriptions per form was 1.59 and the average cost per form was 6s. 1.8d.
The estimated number of forms issued in September, 1952, based on numbers declared by chemists was 9,511,000, and the average number of prescriptions per form 1.72.
The average cost per form is not yet known.

Dr. Stross: Would the Minister agree that from his answer it appears that the deterrent effect of the charge is likely to give greater financial recompense than the 1s. which is charged per form and that, when he obtains the necessary information, he may well find that the increase in the cost of a prescription cancels some of the financial gain which he is hoping to make? If that should be the case, and he is satisfied that it is the case, will he review the whole matter?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the fallacy of comparing prescription forms, which are only pieces of paper. If he makes the necessary calculation, which he can do from my answer, to compare the prescriptions, he will find that the deterrent effect for this month was less than a quarter of 1 per cent.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that some doctors absolutely refuse to put more than one item on a form—and I have evidence of this—in which case the patient has to pay 2s. or in some cases 3s. for the two or three items which some doctors place on one form? Is that fair? Will he not do something about it?

Mr. Macleod: I am always ready to look into specific instances, but I cannot take up a general allegation of that sort.

Tuberculosis Patients (Swiss Treatment)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Health how many British patients are now being treated for tuberculosis in Swiss sanatoria under the National Health Service.

Mr. Iain Macleod: One hundred and thirty beds are available and are continuously occupied, except on the change-over of patients.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister increase this number, for two reasons? First, it does not cost any more to treat patients in Switzerland than it does in this country; secondly, he would diminish the chances of infection spreading in this country, thereby saving many lives and much money.

Mr. Macleod: Our present contract runs until October, 1953. I can give no guarantee beyond that. No doubt my hon. Friend realises that the waiting lists in this country are tumbling all the time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Could the right hon. Gentleman make available a report on the working of the scheme, as it would be of interest to both sides of the House?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman has a Question on this matter later, but, in fact, such a report was recently made.

Pay-bed Charges

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health the average charge made for pay beds attached to hospitals; and the average weekly cost of maintaining them.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that this information is not available. Average figures would in any case be misleading, as Section 5 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, requires the charge at each hospital concerned to cover the whole cost of accommodation and services at that hospital.

Dr. Stross: Will the Minister look at the problem from the point of view of the number of beds which, in some hospitals, are kept vacant for the convenience of the consultant service, and if he finds

that the number is up to 50 per cent., as I am informed, will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Macleod: I do not necessarily accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but we have called for a detailed report which will be available in January.

New Hospitals

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health when it is proposed to build further new hospitals in England or Wales.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As soon as the general economic situation permits.

Dr. Stross: Is the Minister aware that we have not built one new hospital since 1938, which is rather a disgraceful state of affairs for so great a country as ours?

Mr. Macleod: That question would be far more appositely put to his own Front Bench.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the information which he has supplied gives a complete refutation to the charge heard from the benches opposite that the Government's housing drive is at the expense of the hospital?

Hearing Aids, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Leicester citizens requiring hearing aids have to travel twice to Nottingham, once for a test and again for a final fitting; that this involves expense for fares and meals and also loss of time from work, and is a particular hardship for elderly people; and whether he will make arrangements in Leicester for the testing and final fittings there for the residents in Leicester and the surrounding countryside.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am informed that Leicester patients are normally tested and fitted finally with their aids at Leicester, and attend the distribution centre at Nottingham only once, where they receive their aids with a temporary earpiece.

Mr. Janner: Why should people be called upon to attend at Nottingham even once, particularly when it puts them to very considerable expense, which they cannot stand? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Nottingham is such a pleasure resort that Leicester people want to go there? Will he consult the


Prime Minister and other Ministers with a view to ensuring that Leicester is given proper amenities and facilities for this service?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot enter into any argument about the respective merits of Leicester and Nottingham, but I will, of course, take up the hon. Gentleman's point with the regional hospital board.

Mr. Janner: Thank you very much.

Hospital House Committees

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Health whether. in view of the fact that he has asked for greater voluntary work in hospitals, he will grant greater control in the running of hospitals to the house committees as suggested by the Gwent Hospitals Contributory Scheme in a recent letter sent to him so as to ensure greater interest in the running of individual hospitals.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The appointment and functions of house committees must depend primarily on the nature of the hospital group and the views of the committee responsible for its management. I do not want to regulate this too much from the centre, but I share the view of my correspondent that house committees should not have financial powers. I welcome the fullest exercise by such committees of advisory and welfare functions and the inclusion on them of members of voluntary bodies interested in the local hospitals.

Mr. Freeman: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether further elasticity cannot be given to the house committees so that they can have representatives of local voluntary organisations upon them and so carry out the ideas that the Minister has in mind?

Mr. Macleod: That can be done, but I do not want to dictate to hospital management committees.

FOOD POISONING REGULATIONS (REVISION)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Health whether he will revise the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations so as to give wider powers regarding cases of food poisoning.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir, the revision is at present in progress

UNITED KINGDOM AND COMMONWEALTH RESOURCES

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will arrange for a materials, power and resources commission to be appointed to investigate, survey and report on Great Britain like the United States of America President's Materials Policy Commission;
(2) if he will consult the Commonwealth representatives with a view to arranging for a Commonwealth materials, power and resources commission to be appointed and report on the Commonwealth like the United States of America President's Materials Policy Commission.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): An investigation in this country, which would be largely speculative, would not, I am advised, repay the effort involved. Our economic position would be dominated by balance of payment difficulties and not, as in the United States, by supply difficulties. It is for each Government in the Commonwealth to decide whether a commission on its own resources is desirable.

Mr. Smith: If we can accept that the answer applies to this country, does the Prime Minister also apply it to the Commonwealth as a whole? Has not the time arrived when the Commonwealth as a whole should consider problems of this kind, and will the Prime Minister give his personal consideration to the proposal contained in the Questions so that when the Commonwealth Prime Ministers meet after the Coronation they can give joint consideration to the suggestion?

The Prime Minister: It might well be borne in mind.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the Prime Minister's reply to the first of the two Questions, may I ask him not to pay too much attention to the back-room boys of the Treasury and bear in mind that the output of tin in Cornwall could be multiplied six times if proper attention were paid to it and proper provision were made?

The Prime Minister: I think I can give a guarantee that we shall not pay more attention to the back-room boys of the Treasury than it was customary for


the former Minister of Works to pay to the back-room boys at the Ministry of Works.

Mr. Stokes: Am I to understand from the Prime Minister that he intends to pay no attention whatever to the back-room boys of the Treasury?

The Prime Minister: We always endeavour to emulate the highest traditions that are available.

Mr. Gaitskell: With regard to the resources of the United Kingdom, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the recommendations of the Westwood Committee's Report? As regards the Commonwealth, were there not discussions on this subject at the recent conference, and can we not hear something further from the Prime Minister about the prospects of the development of raw material production in the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: I should not be prepared, in a supplementary reply, to embark upon a considerable exposure of all the details of the large problems mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

N.A.T.O. (COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, MEDITERRANEAN)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make his promised statement on the appointment of an Allied Supreme Commander in the Mediterranean.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member seems to be falling behind the movement of events.

Mr. Wyatt: While we are glad that the Prime Minister has himself at last caught up with these events, can he now say definitely whether or not any American ships at all will be under the command of Lord Mountbatten, and can he try this afternoon to provide information instead of evasion or rudeness?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure that I should like to give an answer to that question on the spur of the moment.

HORSES (TRANSIT AND SLAUGHTER)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, despite the redistribution of Ministerial functions relating to cruelty connected with horse slaughter, there is continued evidence of the absence of effective or co-ordinated treatment of the problem; whether his attention has been called, in particular, to the arrival at Birkenhead on 19th November of some horses consigned to Bristol which, on veterinary examination, were found to be suffering from old standing and painful lesions rendering them unfit for movement; whether he is aware that the terms of reference of the committee set up by the Minister of Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland prevent any consideration of questions relating to cruelty in the transport of horses to slaughterhouses; and whether he will, therefore, further review the coordination and application of Ministerial functions in this field.

The Prime Minister: The terms of reference of the committee set up by the Minister of Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland refer to cruelty in the slaughter of horses. Cruelty in transit is dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture, and effective Orders exist for preventing unnecessary suffering by horses in transit. The Government have, of course, no control over conditions outside Great Britain.
The horses referred to in the Question were detained on landing and were destroyed, as they were unfit to travel. They came from the Irish Republic, and the attention of the Irish Government has been drawn to this case. I am sure that this will receive due attention in a country where horses are so esteemed.

Mr. Hastings: May I ask the Prime Minister, whose fondness for horses we all so much admire, whether he appreciates the sufferings of these poor wretched beasts, and whether he has seen the bones, which I have here, of one of the horses mentioned in the Question which was suffering from very severe arthritis? Cannot something further be done to prevent this dreadful cruelty?

The Prime Minister: I agree that no opportunity should be lost in stimulating the scrutiny paid to all aspects of horse


transit and horse slaughter. We will do our utmost—there is only one view in this House on this subject—by example and by precept to improve present conditions.

MOTOR VEHICLES (PURCHASE TAX)

Mr. Edelman (by Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the harmful effect on employment in the motor industry caused by uncertainty concerning the future of Purchase Tax on motor vehicles, he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. I have received representations on this matter from the industry and from Members of this House, but I am not convinced that it would be right to anticipate the normal process in which the claims of the motor industry for relief from Purchase Tax will be taken into account together with all the other similar claims by other industries.

Mr. Edelman: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for this clarification, may I ask if he will make it clear to the manufacturers that it is still his general policy to give the export trade in motor cars precedence over home sales? Would he also say whether, arising out of the Commonwealth Conference, Australia has agreed to restore the cuts in imports which have been so harmful to the British motor industry? Finally, will he say whether, during the three critical months ahead, which may see mass unemployment in the motor industry, he will do everything in his power to use the home market as a buffer against unemployment?

Mr. Butler: I will deal with the first and third points raised by the hon. Member together. We must, of course, keep the export necessity as the first priority. There has been a relaxation of sale on the home market, and in respect of his third point, namely, will we watch the situation in view of possible difficulties. the answer is that our policy must be flexible in this matter and that we are as concerned about employment as the hon. Member and many other hon. Members.
In regard to the hon. Member's second point, about the Commonwealth Conference, if I may be permitted to do so, I should like to refer to paragraph 7 of the now famous communiqué, which stated that there had been an understanding that the restrictions which had to be put on through necessity would be raised if balance of payments difficulties permitted.

Mr. Erroll: As a further contribution to this matter, will the Chancellor prohibit Nigeria from using up our spare dollar reserves by importing American cars when equally good English cars are now available for that territory?

Mr. Butler: All I should like to say about Nigeria and the Colonial Territories in general is that we are extremely grateful to them for the help they have given us in our balance of payments difficulties. I will, of course, also look into the specific point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I ask the Chancellor, first, whether he does not consider that some leading motor manufacturers have themselves created a large part of the uncertainty which has been affecting the industry by their own irresponsible and premature statements about the effect of the Purchase Tax, and whether he will issue a word of warning against this behaviour in the future? Secondly, is he not aware that if he moves too fast towards convertibility and non-discrimination he will do the motor industry far more harm than his statement this afternoon will do good?

Mr. Butler: I cannot interfere with statements made by public men or by public organs, as has been clearly seen in recent days. I must leave the responsibility for this matter to responsible leaders in the industry, but I hope that my statement will now create a greater atmosphere of certainty than was created previously. Secondly, in regard to convertibility and non-discrimination, the hon. Member may be quite satisfied that these aims are such as must be achieved only if they are to the advantage of the employment and standard of living of our own people.

Mr. Fell: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether there is any other way of ending the annual uncertainty caused for something like three months of the


year, which is having an effect not only on the home trade but also on the export trade, which is founded on a healthy home trade in these industries?

Mr. Butler: I can assure my hon. Friend that the uncertainty is not created by myself or the Government, and that it has been the practice of Governments for many years to have annual reviews of the finances and economic situation of the country. As long as that continues, I am afraid that people must adjust their nervous systems to that situation.

Mr. Jay: In view of what the Chancellor has just said about convertibility, has he seen the statement made by Mr. Menzies, the day before last, that the Conference agreed on clear-cut and constructive proposals for partial conversion at least, and as that is not contained in the communiqué can he tell us whether it is true, and if so, why we have heard about it from Mr. Menzies and not from the Chancellor?

Mr. Butler: I have been asked whether I can control the statements of motor manufacturers. I must say that it is equally impossible for me to control the statements of Prime Ministers of other countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about your own?"] I do not desire in this case either to comment on or to criticise the statement made by the Prime Minister of Australia, except to say that it seems to me to fall into general line with the terms of the communiqué which was published.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Chancellor cannot leave it like that. In the first place, his extraordinary disclaimer of responsibility for what other people at the Conference say does not coincide with all the glowing tributes he has paid to the good feeling at the Conference. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, as this is an extremely important matter which may affect hon. Members opposite as well as those on this side of the House, whether be will confirm or deny what Mr. Menzies said about the Conference?

Mr. Butler: I am not aware that the question of convertibility comes up in answer to a question about Purchase Tax.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the week after we return from the Christmas Recess?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 20TH JANUARY—Second Reading:
White Fish and Herring Industries Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
WEDNESDAY, 21ST JANUARY—Motions to approve:
Purchase Tax (No. 8) Order, which brings furniture within the scope of the D Scheme established by Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1952.
Draft Apples and Pears Marketing Scheme.
THURSDAY, 22ND JANUARY—Debate on Welsh Affairs.
FRIDAY, 23RD JANUARY—Private Members' Motions.
I should add that I have considered the representations which have been made in regard to the time allocated for the Report stage of the Transport Bill and I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister in the matter. I should like to inform the House that the Government are prepared to find an extra day for the Report stage, making three in all. This will require an amendment of the Time-table Motion, which, I assume, will be treated as an agreed matter.

Mr. Attlee: First, on Wednesday's business, on the Purchase Tax Order we propose, if you will allow it, Sir, that there shall be one debate covering those Motions to which we are putting down Prayers. Second, if there should be something positive eventuating during the Recess from the recent Commonwealth Conference we might want an early debate on that Conference. Third, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed that legislation should be introduced with regard to the Royal title?

Mr. Crookshank: On the first point, we are quite agreeable, subject to your


decision, Mr. Speaker. On the second point, I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says; that can be discussed through the usual channels should the emergency arise which he has in mind. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might reply to the third point about the Royal titles.

The Prime Minister: This matter is not one which should be dealt with in haste. A State Paper will be laid before both Houses of Parliament shortly after we reassemble in the New Year. Meanwhile, we must all be encouraged by the fact that so majestic a unity of agreement covers titles acclaimed over so large a portion of the world.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in the New Year, he can find time to discuss the Motion in my name about Communist infiltration into the B.B.C.? I am sure he will agree that atheistic Communism is at the root of all our troubles.

Mr. Crookshank: It is not very likely that I shall be able to find time for that, but perhaps my hon. Friend will be lucky in the Ballot.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I express to the right hon. Gentleman our appreciation that he has considered the request which I made on behalf of this side of the House for further time on the Report stage of the Transport Bill? It will not prevent me or others making comments on the Committee stage later in the day, but we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having considered our request. We asked for two extra days, and we have got one, which seems to be in accord with Parliamentary history. In all the circumstances, as far as I am concerned I think that we ought to take the

amendment of the Allocation of Time Order as substantially formal business and not debate it.

Mr. Crookshank: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I look forward to the comments which he promises to give in this matter and the spirit in which he extends them.

Mr. G. Thomas: Does the Leader of the House propose that the Welsh debate is to be restricted through being on a Motion for the Adjournment, or do the Government propose to facilitate a wide debate by tabling a Motion of their own?

Mr. Crookshank: It is, of course, my desire to help the Welsh Members to debate this matter in whatever way is most suitable, and I understand that the most happy solution would be for a Government Motion taking note of the policy which was described in the recent White Paper.

Miss Burton: Can the Leader of the House hold out any hope of time to discuss the Motion, which has now been signed by more than 170 Members on both sides of the House, dealing with the question of hotel accommodation and prices at Coronation time?

Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir; I am afraid not. Perhaps I might add that already 37 Motions have since appeared on the Order Paper, which would take over nine weeks of Parliamentary time if we debated them all.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 20th January.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Considered in Committee. [7th Allotted Day.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 27.—(COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS AND SERVANTS.)

3.44 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I beg to move, in page 35, line 39, to leave out "the modifications," and to insert "any modification."
I do not know whether it would be convenient for me to deal at the same time with the two following Amendments in my name: in page 35, line 40, after "by," insert "or by virtue of.": in line 40, at end, insert:
or in consequence of any schemes made by the Commission and approved by the Minister in pursuance of this Act for any reorganisation of the whole or any part of the Commission's undertaking or in consequence of the abolition of any Executive before or after the passing of this Act.
All three Amendments deal with the same matter.

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took the three together.

Sir R. Glyn: The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that as a result of any change that takes place in consequence of this legislation, the officials and servants of the Commission who may be employed in one or other of the Executives are adequately covered. I understand that these words are necessary to make perfectly certain that there will be no doubt whatever as to the position in which these people are placed.
It has always been the desire of the House that any legislation that is passed should act fairly towards people who, through no fault of their own, may find that their work ceases. That is especially true in the matter of transport, when men have been in the industry all their lives and when, as in this case, there are some of the leading representatives of transport at present employed in various capacities by the Railway Executive.
It may be said that it is a bad principle to compensate people for loss of office which results merely from an adjustment

of a previous Act, but in the past the House has always been careful to see that there was no undue hardship. The officers who were in the pension schemes of the old railway companies which existed from 1921 onwards were all provided for by the terms of the Railway Act of that year.
My right hon. Friend may be able to give an assurance that, under the 1947 Act and previous Acts, all these people are safeguarded and my additional words are not necessary. But they have been given to me by retired friends of mine who were formerly employed in a legal capacity in more than one of the old companies. They very strongly hold the view that the drafting of the Bill jeopardises the future of a number of people. It is unfair to men who have given loyal service to the public for all these years that they should be left in any doubt about their future.

Mr. John Hynd: I support the Amendments because I think that the wording of the Clause is entirely inadequate and is not sufficiently comprehensive. I should have preferred the Clause to read much more shortly, in terms that compensation should be paid to anyone who suffers loss of employment by virtue of this Act. In effect, the hon. Baronet's Amendment brings about that position.
I do not like the proposal in the Clause that compensation shall be subject to the Minister's decision by regulations as to the cases and the extent to which the compensation shall be payable. That is far too wide. It would be much better either to specify clearly what was intended, or to leave it to the Tribunal or to whatever body is to decide the compensation.
Neither do I like the fact that the compensation is to be payable by the Commission. After all, when the transport organisations were nationalised, it was the Commission that had to pay the compensation for loss of employment and emoluments and any other factors arising from nationalisation. Now that the Commission are being forced by legislation to hand over these vehicles to private owners in the event of an employee of the Commission suffering loss of office or of emolument as a result, it is not the new employer who is to make up the loss,


but the Commission have to make it up again.
I can well imagine the possibility of an employee of the Commission being taken on by one who has purchased some of the vehicles and being given detrimental conditions of employment deliberately for a period in order that he may claim compensation from the Commission and, when that compensation has been obtained and the period has elapsed, his conditions being put on a proper footing. I can imagine all kinds of difficulties arising from this. I think it fundamentally wrong that the Commission should have to pay, and therefore have to bear a further burden which ought to be borne by the Exchequer, because the situation has been created by an act of the Government.
I cannot avoid the suspicion that this is one other attempt among those evident throughout the Bill to impose on the Commission such difficulties and such shackles as will make it easier for the private enterprise competitor to point to the difficulties of the Commission in running their business because they have to bear all these burdens.
The main point of the Amendments and the main point with which I am primarily concerned is that the present Clause is too widely drawn and would make a lawyers' paradise. It says that compensation will be paid for those
who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened, in consequence of the duties imposed on the Commission by this Act as to the disposal of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking or of the modifications of the functions of the Commission effected by this Act.
What one would assume was the intention of the Clause could easily have been met, and honestly met, by saying, "whose position has been worsened by virtue of this Act" and leaving it at that. That would be a clear direction to the authority which is to decide on compensation.
My point is met largely by the Amendments put down by the hon. Baronet extending "the modifications" to "any modification" and extending "by this Act" to "or by virtue of this Act," and by the words it is proposed to add at the end of line 40. I hope that the Minister will give very serious consideration to

these Amendments and that it will be possible for him to accept all three of them.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not think there is really any difficulty about the early part of the Clause and about compensation in respect of those in road transport
who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened, in consequence of the duties imposed on the Commission by this Act as to the disposal of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking.
That is clear enough. It is where the railway organisation side is concerned that we have a difficulty. Past history is fairly clear on this. In the Railways Act, 1921, in the Third Schedule, it is laid down specifically that compensation is payable and may only arise—I am not giving the exact words—by reason of the "amalgamation or absorption" of the old railway companies by the big railway groupings of 1921. There is nothing laid down in that Act which requires compensation to be paid as a result of any re-organisation which might take place either then or subsequently in the then new railway groupings.
When we come to the 1947 Act, we see the same principle faithfully carried out in Section 101:
The Minister shall by regulations require the Commission to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation"—
to a variety of people
being officers or servants who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights or whose position is worsened in consequence.
Then it lays down specifically that those consequences are the acquisition of the railway companies and their shares by the Commission.
What now arises is a new set of circumstances by which the Commission are required to undertake some sort of reorganisation; but that re-organisation is already implicit in the 1947 Act. The Commission have there both powers and duties entitling them to make any reorganisation, and there is nothing in the 1947 Act which requires the Commission to pay compensation as a result of that sort of re-organisation. I have searched the Regulations which were published by the then Minister of Transport in the early


part of 1950 to see whether any provision at all was made for compensation arising otherwise than directly through the nationalisation Measure, and it is quite clear that that was not so.
We are now down to the exact definition of the word "functions" and the phrase,
modifications of the functions of the Commission
in the subsection under discussion. If we interpret "functions" as meaning that part of the new duties and activities which the Commission will have in re-organising the railways into a new de-centralised grouping, then if anyone suffered diminution of emoluments or had his position worsened, it might result in his being compensated. But that is not the case if that cannot be ascertained and laid down; he will not get his compensation.
I think the Committee are in some doubt as to what precisely can be done, and it seems to me that we shall have to leave this matter open until the Minister makes the Regulations—which are prayable against by the House—so that it can then be seen to what extent the functions are definable. An attempt to amend the Clause now would perhaps produce a disastrous state of affairs.
I think the Committee are in full sympathy with the ideas which lie behind the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), but if adopted it might carry us very far indeed. It might mean admitting a new principle into railway compensation—that if at any time the manager of a newly de-centralised railway were to carry out some sort of re-organisation within his own railway group, or down to the districts of that group, people would be able to say, "This results from the de-nationlisation Act of 1953 and, therefore, we are entitled to compensation."
Indeed, the principle might go wider still. People might say, "This sets up a new standard of compensation in the railway world. Why should it not be repeated in the State itself?" We might get temporary civil servants employed by the Ministry of Food saying, "If you are doing this for the railways, then clearly, because rationing is being abolished, and our jobs are going, we are suffering diminution of our position and a pecuniary

loss, and so we require the same form of compensation."
I do not wish to labour the point any further. I think that, subject to what my right hon. Friend may tell the Committee this afternoon, it would be wiser to wait until the Regulations are published.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: Apart from taking away a man's liberty, I do not think anyone can do another individual a greater injury than to take away his job. One of the remarkable things about this Bill and the action of the Government is the heartless way in which legislation which will have the effect of disrupting the transport industry and causing the loss of their employment to many thousands of people in this country, is being rushed through the House.
I hope the Minister will give the most careful thought to this matter. We know his powers are not excessive, and that he is acting under orders. I believe he has been shanghaied into the job for the purpose of pushing this Bill through the House. I am sorry to see him in this position, and not in his former position in the Colonial Office. where his mind was more attuned to the needs of the hour.
This is a very vital matter for hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Reference has been made to some new principle which might be brought even into State employment. We on this side of the Committee look upon it as the duty of the State to provide its citizens with employment. When I regard the re-organisation which is to take place in the railway industry—the abolition of the Railway Executive and the consequent re-organisation—I feel I must plead with the Minister to consider, not compensation for lost jobs, but the question of preserving jobs. I believe it possible for every person displaced as a result of the re-organisation to remain in the railway service. I hope the Minister will not allow any trained officer, any brilliant mind we have in Transport, to be pushed out of the service of the railway industry.
I have a rooted objection to paying compensation for loss of office if that can be avoided. I do not like paying people for doing nothing—that is one of the


reasons I am a Socialist. One of the greatest difficulties, following redundancy in the industry, is that men are reduced from one position to another and push someone else out of a job. If the Minister can take every person made redundant in this re-organisation and use him for the most useful job which can be found for him, and maintain his rate of wages without disturbing a host of other people, that will be to the benefit of the State and the industry.
So far as road transport is concerned—the road transport section of the Commission's interests—I do not think we can avoid a certain amount of unemployment. That is inevitable. We are handing them over to ruthless private enterprise organisations, and I do not see how we can protect the personnel in the same way as is possible when the State has control of the industry. I hope the Minister will give the most careful thought to giving proper compensation and as much protection as possible to those people who are displaced. We should not forget that they came to the service of the State.
I shall not attempt to quote what has been said by the Tory Party about "quislings" who came to the service of the State; but I hope that the people who came to assist us in building up a nationalised road industry will be regarded as having responded to the highest call of the State; and that we shall do everything we can to protect their interests and to ensure that the injury inflicted on them will be as little as possible.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) and I endorse his plea that as many people as possible at present employed in the transport service should be retained. It seems to me, however, that the numbers likely to be displaced on the road haulage side of the organisation have been exaggerated, because not only is the Commission retaining an interest in a considerable amount of road services of one sort and another under the previous part of the Bill, but presumably those persons who are buying transport units will have to employ someone, and certainly in the lower grades the normal person to employ would be the man already on the job.
Regarding these Amendments, perhaps there has been a little misunderstanding about the position. With due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), I would remind the Committee that the principle of compensation in connection with the displacement of personnel on the alteration of railway services is very old-established. It has been in the last two Acts which have been worked for a considerable time. From what the Minister has said in our previous debates, it is clear that we intend to continue with that principle, and that it is the intention of the Minister that all persons who suffer by reason of the alterations which would arise in connection with this Bill will be compensated on an adequate basis. The Government have made that clear time and again.
On this matter I am talking from personal experience. Yesterday the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) accused me of not knowing what I was talking about. But on this subject he cannot dispute that I do know what I am talking about, because for a long period I had a lot to do with questions of compensation arising under the 1921 Act. One of the difficulties I encountered was that the Regulations under that Act were much too definite. There were a large number of borderline cases which everyone wished to compensate, but which could not be fitted into the rules and regulations. Arguments were still going on about some of these cases at the outbreak of the war, when there were still outstanding cases.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), who commented on the rather indefinite nature of this Clause, that possibly it might be an advantage to employees if it is not too definite, because it would give a greater scope for the Regulations to be thrashed out and put into a form suitable to representatives of the employed men. We have already heard that the Minister is in touch with the trade unions. I have no doubt that this is one of the subjects which will be mentioned and that the Regulations will be produced in such a form as would appear desirable from experience of previous compensation legislation.


I hope that all interested parties will be consulted, and not merely the trade unions, because there are other groups which do not come into the trade union side at all. I have particularly in mind those personnel who are members of the British Transport Officers' Guild. Though not a trade union, the guild is recognised to a certain extent for negotiating purposes. I have no interest in it, and never have had, but I have been in contact with members of the guild which represents a considerable number of men, both from road and rail, who will be much affected by reorganisation.
I hope they may be brought into the discussions, because, while I am sure they will continue loyally to serve any form of organisation which emerges as a result of the operation of this Bill, in the same way as they did the existing organisation, they will be particularly affected, and on their enthusiasm for working any alterations will largely depend the success of any scheme of re-organisation.

Mr. Percy Morris: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman say that he had been briefed by the British Transport Officers" Guild?

Mr. Wilson: No. I said that I had no interest whatever in that guild, and never have had. I mentioned that because I was a railway officer, but members of my department were advised not to join that body, and did not do so. The reason was that we might have to give legal advice which might affect members of that guild. It was not a rule, but it was the understood thing that we remained separate, as I think that we should.
I feel that the Minister should perhaps look again at this Clause to see whether there are any circumstances which are not covered by existing legislation. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South referred to the provisions of previous Acts which are still in force. It is not clear to what extent they would operate in connection with the alterations which will take place as a result of this Bill. It is not clear how far one could, under sections of previous Acts, deal with any worsening of conditions under this Bill. It seems to me that the matter could be dealt with by Regulations. No doubt the Minister, when he consults representative

bodies, will be able to come to an appropriate decision.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: This series of Amendments makes clear the need for embracing within the terms of any compensation Clause full details of those who are affected. The dismissal of the Railway Executive and the Road Haulage Executive is the result of the policy of the Government, entirely apart from any question of re-organising the railways. The second Amendment in line 40, the third of the series, would ensure that, if any Executive were abolished, the employees would come within the terms of this Clause. The Clause as drafted does not make that clear.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) discussed the possibility of the acceptance of this Amendment widening immensely the responsibility of Parliament for compensation. He must recognise that this proposed re-organisation of the railways is part of a process which is going on continually and which has gone on for generations. In the past re-organisation created redundancy in many spheres, and it had to be met within the organisation itself. There was no question of compensation. Indeed, the normal process of death and resignation made available about 30,000 vacancies a year.
One cannot deny that this railway re-organisation is a completely new and novel idea which creates its own problems. Redundancy will continue to occur, as it always has done; but here we have a special case created by the action of the Government in abolishing the two Executives. There is need to embody within this legislation protection which I am certain Parliament would agree is due to those concerned.
4.15 p.m.
I suggest that the compensation Sections of the 1921 Act and the 1947 Act, as they have worked, have revealed anomalies and difficulties which possibly the Minister might overcome if he takes advantage of the experience of both sides who have been engaged in carrying out the instructions contained in those two Acts of Parliament. There is a wealth of experience since 1921 available to the Minister on this question of Regulations. It has been said that we can, if necessary, pray against these Regulations. I ask


the Minister to consider using the affirmative procedure in this connection.
The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that ever since his proposals were first published months ago there was created in the transport industry as a whole a good deal of uncertainty and doubt. The Minister should do whatever he can to clear that away. It is not necessary to coddle the people engaged in the industry—they do not want that—but they want to be assured of a fair deal. The Minister must recognise that he has created a period of doubt for all these people who knew that they would be affected by this Bill. That situation of uncertainty could be cleared up, to a large extent, if the Minister would go as far as possible towards putting in the Bill an assurance to these people who are affected by the Government's action.
I do not deal with this matter in a party sense. We all recognise that transport re-organisation has been under consideration for a long time and that the position of these people has been uncertain. I ask the Minister to include within the Bill itself as much reassurance as possible. These people are entitled to that. We must recognise that the hiving off of great parts of the industry creates considerable difficulties for the employees. Some officers and servants in this industry have been members of superannuation funds, and they have certain protection.
The Minister recognises that there are many operatives to whom such protection does not apply in any way. These people who are deprived of their occupation by the operation of this Bill may do well when the road haulage industry goes into private hands. On the other hand, they may not, and in the case of these people, if the Minister deals with the matter in a sympathetic way, he can give a good deal of assurance to them by the way these compensation Clauses are handled.
My final word is this. I ask the Minister to take advice on the actual wording of the compensation Clauses from people who, ever since 1921, have had to deal with this problem. The trade unions have an immense experience extending over all that time, and I ask the Minister to take advantage of that experience, which is freely available to him, and to use it to the best advantage.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this stage, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport would hope to speak briefly towards the end of the debate. If it is wondered why I intervene in this debate, many of the matters we are now discussing under these two Clauses touch my Department, and, if I may adduce a personal reason. it would be to say that I am very delighted to do what I can to bear a very tiny share of the burden which the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have borne so well, as I think the whole Committee would agree, during the long days of this Committee stage.
I think that, above all, these two Clauses deal with what is essentially a human problem, and one cannot but be impressed by the general consensus of opinion expressed in the Committee that it is a human problem which has, to some extent—and we must accept it—been created by the deliberate action of the Government.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I think it would be helpful to the Committee if we could get the position clear. I understand that we are discussing certain Amendments moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), and we on this side expected that we would have a rather general debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," with a separate debate on each of the two compensation Clauses. I thought it would be convenient for us—indeed, we were looking forward to it—to have a general statement from the Parliamentary Secretary and also from the Minister, but I feel that it would be more convenient if it took place when the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" was reached and not on the Amendments.

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps I misled the hon. Gentleman, but I was only proposing to deal with the issue raised in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), and I was also going to reply to some of the points raised in the debate on this particular Amendment, which perhaps did go a little wide of the Amendment itself.


If that would be agreeable to hon. Members opposite, I shall not detain the Committee very long.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: May I ask what time there will be for back-benchers to participate in the debate? It is all very well, but some of us have sat here for eight hours and yet have not been called, because of these arrangements. If the matter is to be debated on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," should not Members on the Front Benches on either side deny themselves a little in favour of the back benchers?

Mr. Watkinson: I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, and if hon. Members prefer that this particular part of the debate should go unanswered, I shall be very delighted to resume my seat. It is entirely a matter for the Committee to deal with, but I think there are certain points that should be answered, and they happen to be the responsibility of my particular Ministry. I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee to hear some statement on the part we are proposing to play in what is a very difficult operation, and I would propose to deal with that as quickly as may be.
What I was saying when interrupted was that, if the State intervenes in industry, it does undertake the obligation of protecting as far as it can those whose livelihood has been affected by this intervention. Let me deal first with the practical points and say that there are two ways in which I think my Ministry can help in this operation. It is essentially, from the practical point of view, an operation of job-switching within the industry. We hope that in this expanding transport industry there will be jobs for all, but we have to protect people who either want or have to change their jobs. Therefore, the first difficulty that we have to meet is that of some machinery to enable people to switch their jobs, and I will deal with that for a moment, and then go on to cover the points on compensation raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon.
I will deal first with the practical points. The first one is that the whole of the services of the Ministry of Labour will be fully available to people who are displaced, either from the railways or the road transport side of the industry, and

we shall try to arrange that advanced notification is given to the employment exchanges so that placing work can begin and preparations be made beforehand to find out whether people either want or have to change their jobs.
There is another thing we can do, and this relates to the cases of senior railway officers who may be displaced or have to change their jobs in the re-organisation scheme. It concerns the work of our Appointments Branch, which maintains appointments officers in London, Manchester and Glasgow. We propose to set up there a special section in each office which will deal with these senior members of the staff appropriate to the grades dealt with by the Appointments Branch, through whom we hope to get advance notice and deal with the matter as sympathetically and practically as we can.
Therefore, we have only to meet the compensation point in a certain number of cases, because we hope men will be placed in or outside industry and will not attract compensation at all, and I think that, in the view of the Committee, that is the right solution; not to have to fall back on compensation, but to try to do without it by placing these men scientifically and sympathetically.
If I may come to the more narrow points raised in the Amendments, perhaps I might begin by answering a point raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) on consultation. I want to make it quite plain that, on any matter arising from either of these Clauses, we shall have the fullest possible consultation, not only with the trade unions, but with all the bodies that are representative of the employees in this great industry, and amongst them, certainly, is the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson)—the British Transport Officers' Guild. There are many others as well, and one should include the Scottish Horse and Motormen's Union, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Transport Salaried Staff Association.
I think it is the sense of the Committee that, in the terms of the explanation which I tried to state at the beginning of the debate, where the State takes responsibility for a major change in a major industry, it must also take responsibility for trying to see that the change does not


create a lot of human problems which remain unsolved. From that point of view, I think one cannot but be sympathetic to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and by other hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the Committee.
This is, however, a very difficult technical problem, because it might just as well be argued that there was ample scope for re-organisation within the railway industry under the 1947 Act, and, while it was not tested, it is a matter for argument whether or not the Railway Executive could not have been greatly modified, if not disposed of altogether, under that Act. One might argue the counter-case that this operation should not attract compensation because it could equally well have been carried out under the terms of the 1947 Act, but I do not think that it is in that narrow, legalistic way in which my right hon. Friend wants to look at this problem, because it is, as I said earlier, a human problem.
Therefore, I am certainly empowered to say that he will consider this matter sympathetically between now and the Report stage, but I think I should make it plain, because some of the difficulties have been referred to by several hon. Members, that we shall have some very complicated tasks, and my difficulty will be to draw a dividing line between what could have been done under the existing Acts and what might be changed under the Bill we are now discussing. We can fairly promise to examine this very complex matter in the light of what has been said in this discussion today, in order to see whether we cannot find some method by which we can meet this problem.
4.30 p.m.
I do not wish to delay the Committee, but one or two hon. Members have raised points on this particular discussion with which I want to deal. I would point out to the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), who raised the point of compensation being an additional burden on the Commission, that the Commission will, of course, be reimbursed from the Transport Fund in respect of compensation which it will have to pay.

Mr. J. Hynd: In that case, will the Minister please explain the reason for the difference in phraseology of Clause 11 and this Clause? Clause 11, which

provides for the payment of compensation from the levy, refers to
payments to the Commission equal to so much of the payments falling to be made by the Commission under the provisions of this Act relating to compensation to officers and servants as is ascribable to the duties imposed by this Act on the Commission as to the disposal of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking,
whereas the compensation for which the Commission is liable under Clause 27 is not only
for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking,
but also
the modifications of the functions of the Commission effected by this Act.
That surely means that there is a burden of compensation to be borne by the Commission which will not be covered by the levy and which the Amendments proposed by the hon. Baronet wish to bring within the ambit of the Act, and to make even wider.

Mr. Watkinson: It is true that there is a special section of compensation here, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to say in his earlier remarks that he was referring to the broad general position. The fact that he is right on this point is another example of the difficulties that arise when we are trying to solve a very complex problem, and that is another reason these two Clauses are distinctly drawn in general terms and follow the precedent of the 1947 Act.
If we do not define them too closely now, my right hon. Friend the Minister, when he comes to make the Regulations, will be able to meet the right problems in the right way. That is why I made it plain that he would be anxious to consult all the interests involved, because the real crux of the matter will be the making of the Regulations, because a similar position was experienced under the 1947 Act.
In answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) regarding employment, I would again stress that my Ministry will definitely make this a separate and distinct operation, either in the employment exchanges or in the Appointments Branch. As I say, by having advance notice and dealing in advance with these cases, we hope to have a smooth job switch rather than to have people waiting before finding work.

Mr. George Brown: Although it is quite true that the hon. Gentleman's Ministry already have pockets of unemployment so far as the road haulage section of the transport industry is concerned, if his offices in those areas were to make themselves responsible for finding jobs for the people who are displaced under this arrangement it would be better than the men concerned accepting jobs a long distance away. If the hon. Gentleman has considered that matter, will he tell the Committee what steps it is proposed to take to make it financially and practically possible for such men in the areas where there is already a pocket of unemployment to take jobs elsewhere?

Mr. Watkinson: Of course, that is a continuing problem for us anyhow. In Coventry, for example, there is at present a shortage of transport drivers, while in other areas of the country there is no such shortage. I am not aware of any pool of unemployed transport drivers at any point in the country. But we must face the position when the operation actually takes place, because the pattern that exists today may be quite different from the pattern that will exist at that time. We will certainly undertake to look at the point, but I think we can best meet it in the way I have suggested.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is quite customary today for an employer who is going to make any significant number of people redundant to give the manager of our local employment exchange advance notice, amounting, in some cases, to several weeks and in others much longer. The longer, the better. We hope to arrange with the Road Haulage Executive to give advance notice to the manager of the local employment exchange, or, in the case of a big operation, to our regional office regarding job-switching and changing. I feel that if we get adequate notice we can fit the jobs to the people.
In conclusion, I would say that if this whole operation is carried out with sympathy and understanding on both sides, I believe it may go much more smoothly than most people think possible. I also think that those in the industry who may be seriously disturbed about the effect which this operation may have on their livelihood should take some comfort from the fact that both sides of the Committee

are obviously determined that this thing should go smoothly. It is not a matter of party politics in any way, but an operation in which we want to try to meet what is a human problem, because it arises from the Bill.
Whatever our arguments may have been on the Bill itself, we are surely not going to transfer them to the practical sphere of trying to fit people into the right jobs at the right time. As I say, I do not think the Committee can accuse my right hon. Friend of not having made it plain throughout the whole of this debate that, above all, we will try to meet the human needs and problems that may arise from this Bill. We are entirely confident that in an expanding industry there will be better chances of better jobs for everyone. That is not a bad thing to which to look forward.
Finally, I will only say once more, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, that his Amendments deal with a very difficult and complex problem. I do not think it would be fair to commit ourselves to anything more than to state that we will look at the matter again to see whether we can meet fairly and properly some of the special difficulties that may arise, and, having said that, I will not detain the Committee longer.

Mr. Sparks: I am not wholly satisfied with what the Parliamentary Secretary has said on this matter, but that is not to say that I would deny that he is trying to do his best in the circumstances. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the problem is much more than just one of job-switching, because he knows that what really took place under the 1947 Act was that a large number of road haulage employees who enjoyed many and varied conditions of employment and wages, all of which were very inferior to the standard enjoyed by the road haulage employees of the railway companies, were brought together and integrated into the Road Haulage Executive organisation. Therefore, their standards of wages and employment rose considerably.
In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary must also be aware that an employee of the Road Haulage Executive has greater security of employment than is to be found in very many private enterprise organisations.

Mr. Watkinson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is now


accusing me of the very thing he asked me not to do. I did not deal with the matter at any great length because he accused me of wasting the time of the Committee, but if he wishes, I shall be delighted to go further into it.
In answer to his particular point, may I say that, while I agree that there may perhaps be some greater prospect of continuity of service under the Road Haulage Executive as it now stands, I am not happy about his statement with regard to earnings. He knows as well as I do that in many cases there will be the possibility of earning more by getting return loads. That was quite a common thing before the days of nationalisation. In those days, earnings, though perhaps more patchy, were in some cases much more than they are now.

Mr. Sparks: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but I had not quite completed my emphasis on the very important fact that now the process is taking place in reverse. There are 80,000 road haulage employees who are enjoying the highest standard of wages and conditions and of security of employment to be found anywhere. Now the process is taking place in reverse, and from one good employer they may be dispersed over any number of employers who may be good, bad or indifferent.
There is also not the same degree of security of employment in the new jobs to which the hon. Gentleman may be able to switch a Road Haulage Executive employee. What is to happen in the case of an ex-Road Haulage Executive employee for whom the Ministry of Labour have provided another job and who finds that, after six or 12 months, or even less, his new employer is unable to continue to employ him? Does such a person become entitled to any form of compensation? If the Road Haulage Executive had not been disturbed, and provided that there was no misconduct on the part of the individual concerned, that employee would have remained in the service of the Executive indefinitely; and in certain grades he would have qualified in time for a gratuity or pension. I know that there are other grades to which that provision does not apply.
If the hon. Gentleman is going to switch a road haulage employee to another job, then in fairness he must

have attached to the other job the same conditions of security of employment and, as near as possible, the same conditions relating to wages, otherwise the switch will not be comparable in any way.
I should like also to know from the Minister whether this proposed arrangement will cover not only road haulage employees but railwaymen whose positions are likely to be made redundant as a result of the loss of traffic from the railways to the new road haulage organisations. It is no use the Government saying that that will not happen, because in the original Bill they provided for exactly that contingency. They are hoping, of course, that as a result of the new charges scheme that will not happen. I doubt their hope. The danger is there, and there is the clear possibility that a number of railwaymen at various points will find themselves facing redundancy as a result of loss of traffic from the railways to the roads.

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member will know that the Regulations have yet to be made. Those Regulations will set out the compensation and will be made in close consultation with the trade unions. If the Regulations cause hard cases they will go to the Tribunals set up by my Ministry, and the same Tribunals have been functioning under the 1947 Act with every satisfaction.

Mr. Sparks: If it is recognised that redundancy is caused by the provisions of this Bill and these cases come within the compensation provisions, that will satisfy all of us. But we want to make sure that they are not left out. Nobody knows what is to be the fate of these 80,000 employees, and this Clause and Clause 26 are vital to these men. We do not know how many of them are to be placed in comparable employment and how many are not, because there is no guarantee that all the vehicles will be sold.
The chances are that the British Transport Commission will be left with a substantial number of vehicles operating on unremunerative routes and that the Commission will have to carry a staff of road haulage employees for whom, it is very likely, there will be redundancy, because the Road Haulage Executive will not be expected to maintain a road service which is not economic. Therefore, there is the


possibility of redundancy arising with regard to that section of road haulage employees who are left.
This question is fraught with very grave consequences for a considerable number of men. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be as sympathetic as he possibly can be, and if he is prepared to maintain the closest consultation with the trade unions concerned in this matter and to adopt their advice from time to time, I am sure that he will not go very far wrong.
4.45 p.m.
I have received a copy of a letter addressed to the Prime Minister by one of my constituents who is an assistant super-intendent at one of the principal British Road Services depots. It emphasises the reaction of these men who are affected by this provision of the Bill. It epitomises exactly their anxieties and how they feel. It is dated 26th November, and states:
Many of us who hold clerical and administrative positions with the Road Haulage Executive are perturbed about our future if and when you pass your Transport Bill into law and de-nationalise the British Road Services.
We wonder how we shall fare if and when the units and/or groups in which we are employed are disposed of. Shall we be taken into the service of the purchasers in positions of equal status to those we now fill and at rates of pay commensurate with those we at present enjoy?
Will there be anything in your Bill when it does become law which will guarantee to us continuity of service or compensation for the loss of employment and payment of such compensation at rates which will give us security to meet our financial commitments to our families until such time as we can be found positions equal to those we may be turned out of because of de-nationalisation?
Many of us are over the 50 years of age limit and will find employment hard and the finding of alternative employment even harder. Many of us have given to transport both prior to and after nationalisation conscientious service, knowing that we were selling a service to the public because that was what we were paid for. We have not considered our jobs or our industry from the political angle and we wish only to serve the public as we have been used to do. Will the public after taking our jobs from us give us the same security as we have learned to appreciate since 1948?
Your personal assurances upon these matters will be greatly appreciated.

Mr. James Callaghan: What was the response?

Mr. Sparks: All that this gentleman received was a printed acknowledgment

from an obscure private secretary to the Prime Minister. Whether he had seen that letter or not, I do not know.
This is only one of 80,000 employees of the Road Haulage Executive. I think that the letter clearly represents what is in the minds of a great band of men who have done an excellent job for the country and who are alarmed and concerned about their future prospects when this Bill becomes an Act. I feel that they deserve the utmost consideration from the Minister and his colleagues. When the Minister frames his Regulations, he should make them as wide and generous as he is able to do, so as to ensure that no one suffers as a result of the changes which the Government propose.

Sir Patrick Spells: I rise to try to confirm the necessity for reconsidering Clause 27 (1). Promises have been made by the Parliamentary Secretary about what it is hoped to put in the Regulations, but it will not be possible for the Regulations to be made operative unless statutory authority covers what is put in them. That is why subsection (1) has to be most carefully considered by the Committee and, I hope, amended before the Report stage.
So far as compensation for those connected with the road haulage undertaking is concerned, the operative words—although they are somewhat clumsy—are at any rate extremely broad, and I believe it would be possible for the Regulations affecting employees in the road haulage undertaking to be in whatever form the Government want them to be. But, as my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) pointed out, compensation for the railway employees appears to depend entirely on the last words of subsection (1), which are:
… modifications of the functions of the Commission effected by this Act.
Then I look at what this Bill imposes on the Commission. Clause 14 imposes the all-important work of preparing and submitting schemes and carrying them through and, as has been pointed out, subsection (2) of that Clause is imperative as to what the schemes are to provide for. Some years ago I was a railway director and I am fairly familiar with the Railway Acts, though I was away when the 1947 Act was passed, which I very much regret. I do not think that it is an existing


function of the Commission to prepare a scheme as indicated in Clause 14.
Therefore, it is not a modification of their existing functions to prepare such a scheme, and if the only Regulations they can make for the railway employees must come within the ambit of the modification of their existing functions, some of the promises I have listened to with great pleasure simply could not be validly carried out by the Regulations. It seems to me that not only must Clause 27 include the modification of existing functions, but it must include the new functions which are imposed on the Commission by this Bill. If the words were broad enough, the Regulations could be made in whatever form is thought right and proper.
I am a person who has suffered from an Act of Parliament which has brought my job to an end, and I have a very considerable interest in what Parliament does for those people who may find themselves in a similar position. I subscribe to the view that, while no obligation is recognised by Parliament to pay compensation or for compensation to be provided to people who lose their jobs in the ordinary course of redundancy in their trade or employment, it has been recognised for years that when Parliament deliberately passes a Bill which will or may bring to an end the occupations of certain people, Parliament should make proper provision for compensation.
It is because I think that subsection (1) is not sufficiently wide to carry out what I know to be the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers, that I say it needs very serious reconsideration.

Sir Frank Soskice: I should like to reinforce the plea to which we have just listened, which is based upon the same reasoning as that which actuated the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) in moving this Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour intervened in the debate on this Amendment and, as I understood it, said that careful consideration would be given to the Amendment.
It is an anxiety of the hon. Member who put down the Amendment, and certainly of my hon. Friends, that the terms of Clause 27 (1) should be sufficiently wide to enable the compensation to be

payable in respect of any change brought about by the provisions of this Bill. The anxiety we all feel is whether the words:
…or of the modifications of the functions of the Commission effected by this Act.
are sufficiently wide to achieve that purpose. Many hon. Members desire to discuss Clause 27 on rather a broader basis, but at the moment we are concentrating our attention on the more limited question of the precise meaning of the words I have just read.
The Parliamentary Secretary intimated that consideration was to be given to this Amendment, but I venture to ask him whether he could amplify what he has already said, by saying that not only will that consideration be given, but that he and the Minister will put down an Amendment, if they are advised that it is necessary—and I should think that it was necessary—which would be so phrased as to put it beyond any doubt not only that the change in road haulage is going to be brought within the scope of Clause 27 (1) but that the other change—the re-organisation of the railways which is brought about by this Bill—will also be brought within the scope of that subsection.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary had that in mind, and it may be that that is what the Minister himself intends, but it would be a great consolation to the very large number of persons who are in a state of considerable uncertainty as to what is their immediate, or almost immediate, future if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary were able, in terms, to assure the Committee not only that they will consider the Amendment very carefully but will so remodel subsection (1) as to make it absolutely certain that the Regulations made under it can in fact, intra vires the subsection, cover any change in the employment or conditions of any person which may be brought about by any of the provisions of this Bill.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I had intended to reserve my remarks until we were discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but, in reply to that specific inquiry, the best answer I can give is that we are in general sympathy with the three Amendments put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and it is certainly our intention that where, for example,


in the case of the railways, a re-organisation scheme is imposed on the Commission by statute—as it were—there must be an obligation that people affected by that re-organisation scheme are covered by the compensation Regulations.
But the reason I could not go so far as might be expected in replying to the query of the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) is the question which was referred to by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), that it is possible that in the future there will be a diversion of traffic from rail to road consequent upon greater competition. It would be clearly impracticable for any compensation Regulations to cover people who in future years might lose their employment because road transport began to replace rail transport.
On reflection, I do not think the hon. Gentleman would push that point further or expect it to be covered, but within the limited and defined field in which it brings the railwaymen affected within the same broad assurance as the road hauliers have, I can certainly give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance for which he asks.

Sir R. Glyn: I think I am right in saying that when we reach the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," hon. Members in every part of the Committee will have an opportunity of dealing with this matter in the widest possible way. Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, upon which this narrow discussion has taken place, I should like to say that I am very much obliged to the Minister for his remarks and to my hon. Friends who are learned in the law.
What we want to do is to see that all these admirable people, who have served the country so well, have a happy Christmas and feel less anxiety. I take it that what we have just been told will give them that assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.0 p.m.

Mr. P. Morris: The Committee will have gathered from the discussion that has already taken place that there is widespread anxiety over this Clause,

and I should like to put two or three questions to the Minister in the hope that, when he replies, he can alleviate the anxieties in the minds of many people. Thousands of men employed in the transport industry are wondering whether they are likely to be victims of this Bill. At least three categories occur to me: those affected by the abolition of the Railway Executive, of the Road Haulage Executive, and the de-centralisation of the railways. These are major operations, but there may be many others, and unless some assurance is given these men will feel that their live-lihood is in very grave danger.
It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), but just now he mentioned that there is no compensation for men who are redundant as a result of normal re-organisation. Those of us who have been dealing with this subject for many years know that the line of demarcation between redundancy that has arisen out of absorption and redundancy due to re-organisation is very thin, and we have been to courts of appeal on more than one occasion asking other people to decide the issue for us.
We should like to ask the Minister to indicate in categorical terms how he proposes to provide for this new class of displaced persons. We have just heard a very significant statement from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. I do not blame him one bit. It is all that the Ministry could say, but it is obvious that the Government anticipate a good deal of redundancy, and there are likely to be very many men and women who will be displaced as a result of the implementation of the scheme contained in this Bill.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think I mentioned the word "redundancy" in the whole of my speech. The point I was making was that within an expanding transport industry, if there is a change in ownership there must be a good deal of job-switching, a thing of which we have had a good deal of experience in the rearmament programme.

Mr. Morris: That is purely hypothetical. Experience under the Act of 1921 and even under the Act of 1947, has taught us that the Minister's answer is quite hypothetical, and it will be too


late to shut the stable door when the horse has run away. His Ministry anticipates the need to make special provision for people who will be thrown out of work.
I should like to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). What is to be done for a man who is protected at the time the undertaking was sold but who in two or three months' time is dismissed? He can be dismissed without any claim for compensation at all. We feel that something ought to be done to safeguard the position of such people. I gathered from the preliminary reply of the right hon. Gentleman that he is going to continue his conversations with the trade unions about these Regulations, and I hope that, as a result of those discussions, he will frame the Regulations in such a way that they will be acceptable to the House.
There are one or two other important factors that must be mentioned. There is the operative date for compensation. We feel that it should be 1st May, 1952, that is, from the time the White Paper was published, because up to that time all the men who went into road haulage and the railway industry had every reason to believe that they were starting a career, and were likely to have permanent employment. It is only since the publication of the Government's intention on that matter that they have had cause to be very worried, and we hope that when the Minister examines this aspect of the matter he will make the operative date 1st May.
What about the "cause of action period"? That is a technical term which may puzzle some hon. Members, but it is vital for the people involved. Under Section 101 of the 1947 Act the "cause of action period" was laid down as 10 years, and we hope the Minister will be able to keep that period in these new Regulations, because it is of great importance that if these people are to lose their posts they will be given reasonable compensation.
Yesterday the Minister referred to a turnover of 23,000 in this industry. I must confess that the figure surprised me, and I have checked it since. Whilst it is accurate, the implications of it are not. The inference I drew from what the right hon. Gentleman said was that there were 23,000 people coming in and out of the

transport industry, but it is not quite like that. What happened was that when the Road Haulage Executive set about their business of organising that side of the industry, they took over the staff that were employed by the companies they were acquiring, and when that organisation had reached a certain stage they were able to dispense with very many employees.

Mr. David Renton: If the hon. Gentleman refers to pages 176 and 177 of last year's Accounts he will find that, in fact, during the year 1951 the total number employed by the Road Haulage Executive went up by about 4,700.

Mr. Morris: But the turnover is not due to people flitting in and out of the industry. There were special circumstances applying to the acquisition of these undertakings that made it necessary for one or other of the Executives to get rid of their temporary staff.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are not trying to make any ideological points out of this, but so much is said about the insecurity of private employment and the security of Government employment that I am bound to put these figures to the Committee. Over the last three years there was the following wastage—last year, 23,000; the year before, 22,000, and the year before that, 15,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) said, there has been an actual increase in the staff, and this is not over the field of the Executives; it is for the British Road Services alone.

Mr. Morris: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to take a retrospective view of the matter, he will find that no improvement or stability was effected until the employees concerned were able to get satisfactory wages and salaries as a result of going to the various tribunals. In fact, we had reached the point when the industry was losing thousands of people, and then with the help of the Minister of Labour in the last Government we were able to get our standards improved to a reasonable extent, and this enabled us to retain people in the industry.
These are the three points I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman—whether he will consider the operative date as 1st May; whether he will tell us what he


has in mind about the cause of action period; and to what extent he will consult the trade unions in framing the Regulations before submitting them to the House for confirmation.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I hope the Committee will forgive my intervention in this debate. This is the first time that I have addressed the Committee during consideration of this Bill, and I only do so now because in the middle of my constituency there happens to be one of the biggest railway marshalling yards in Europe. I would endorse the opinion expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that railway workers are chiefly concerned about the significance of this particular part of the Bill.
I realise that anyone who wants to go into the subject of compensation in detail needs a very much greater knowledge of the background of this question than I have. It is a complicated process and the Committee is automatically faced with the problem of deciding whether logic is the only thing that ought to matter, or whether we should get down to the details of what is practicable. However, in matters of compensation logic and practicability are not always the same thing.
I think that probably many of us would feel that, from the point of view of logic, as the Commission is the main body concerned in this matter, compensation for the road haulage people displaced ought to be exactly the same as the compensation for the railwaymen, but I think, also, that all those who know the railway side of the question would at once say that there is a great tradition in these matters on the railway side, and that it would be catastrophic to upset it, and that we simply must, if we can, ensure that that great tradition is maintained and that the compensation is mutually agreed by all concerned, even if that should mean that it cannot be identical as between the railwaymen and the road haulage men. It would be preferable to have an arrangement in which everybody concerned could feel real confidence.
I feel that confidence, which was, perhaps, a little shaky before, ought to have been restored today by what we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary

to the Ministry of Labour. I think that he answered the questions that the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) asked about having consultations with the trade unions. I think he made it abundantly clear that he does intend to bring in the trade unions on this matter. I am sure we are all very glad of that, because I suppose that there are few industries in which the trade unions are stronger or have more members, and it would be a great tragedy if the trade unions were left out. I was delighted to hear what my hon. Friend said.
So far as the matter affects people in my own constituency—and I make no apology for making rather a constituency speech on this particular matter—I would say that these men have shown as well as any others in any section of British Railways that nationalisation can be made to run extremely efficiently. In those marshalling yards in my constituency they have cut out Sunday work. That has often meant getting less money in a week, but they have worked well.
I hope that, as a result of Clause 14 in the Bill, we shall not unnecessarily upset those sections of these workers who are working well, but, if it does so happen that there are displacements so that the scheme may be a more practicable proposition over the country as a whole—I realise that we cannot deal only with one district, however important, but must deal with a matter like this on a national scale—then I hope that proper compensation will be worked out, in the greatest possible detail, and by bringing in all concerned for thorough consultation, so that we may all feel that everybody is working together, rather than that it should be worked out simply as a first proposition to which reactions merely are asked for. It will be so much better for everybody if everybody concerned is in on the matter right from the beginning. I hope that my hon. Friend's assurance means that the trade unions will be brought in right from the very beginning.
There was one particular point that I should like to take up that was made by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) when we were discussing an Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), and that was the point he made about Clause 11 (1) and the difference between that subsection and Clause 27 (1). I personally


was impressed very much. The point had not occurred to me before. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will give us an assurance that that particular matter will be looked into, because I think it is very important, if we are to try to make sure that the Commission will have sufficient funds to carry out its obligations, that we do not leave out that obligation whereby it will have to pay compensation. It appears on the face of it, as the Bill stands, that so far as compensation for road haulage workers is concerned, all is satisfactory, but that so far as the railwaymen are concerned there is need, perhaps, to tidy up the two Clauses.
5.15 p.m.
In this debate, and in the previous debate on the Amendment, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been talking almost with one voice, and I hope that that is a happy augury for the future, because I think we are all agreed, so far as the railways are concerned, that their job is absolutely indispensable, and that many of the workers in the industry are doing their best to make it a success, no matter what their politics. Let us hope they will go on doing that.

I am quite certain that those who remain in the industry as a result of this reorganisation will work very much more happily if they know that those who have to leave the industry to make it a working proposition under the new set-up approved by Parliament are properly compensated and looked after. I therefore feel that this is perhaps one of the most important Clauses in the Bill from the point of view of the smooth working of the industry.
As regards road haulage, I do hope that hon. Members will banish from their minds the idea that the majority of employers are likely to be worse employers than British Road Services. I am quite convinced myself from what I have learned in talking to road haulage drivers that there are many advantages that can be derived from private enterprise actually from the point of view of the workers, the drivers and the workers on the maintenance of the vehicles.
I am sure that one of the most important things concerning compensation is the announcement which was made some time ago by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that

the Ministry were discussing the possibility of implementing our party's Workers' Charter. One of the things that has always been to the forefront in our Industrial Charter has been the idea that there should be proper compensation for loss of employment through no fault of the worker himself, and I hope very much that this does mean that we are going ahead on those lines, to try to ensure that the individual operative—in all industries—whether he or she be working for a nationalised industry or a privately-owned industry will have a general minimum standard of rights and protection that will ensure that nobody is put in the position of sweated slave labour and unfair treatment.
Therefore, I feel that the general approach of the Government towards this problem is one which is designed not merely to make the industry efficient—because there are ways of doing that without being humane—but also to give this assurance to those who work in industry, whether nationalised or under private enterprise. It is vital that this principle should be established in people's minds.
I believe that the general intention of the Government has been made clear by what we have heard today—a good deal clearer than it was on a first reading of the Bill. I do hope, therefore, that there will be Amendments to the Bill which will make it abundantly clear, not only what the Government's intentions are, but also that there are feasible propositions for carrying out what the Government want to do and what we all want to do, too.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: This is a very vital part of the Bill, and deals with people's livelihood and the question of compensation for those who may be displaced under its provisions. I think hon. Members in all parts of the Committee were impressed by the letter read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) from one of the officers who was concerned about his position in respect to the de-nationalisation of the road transport industry. I think that was a typical expression of the sincere fear of hundreds and thousands of men engaged in the industry—the fear that their jobs, their conditions of employment, their standards generally will be impaired by the application of the Bill.


We are very much indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour for the statement which he has made. Nevertheless, while we are always satisfied that the machinery of the Ministry of Labour will be used to its fullest extent in trying to provide employment for the men displaced, they are going to find it increasingly difficult to do so, in view of the number of unemployed in the transport industry at the present time.
It appears to me that here is a real tragedy. Here we have a Government which intends to create, presumably, a problem of unemployment for the Ministry of Labour to solve in an industry which is performing an essential national service, and which is showing very definite results as an industry and from the point of view of finance. I think that it is regrettable that the Government, at this particular time of industrial difficulty for our nation, should come forward with a Bill of this character and cause such disturbances in the transport industry, when the Minister of Labour and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and, indeed, the whole of the Cabinet—are putting emphasis upon the need for increased production throughout the country.
This is not the time for the dislocation of industry and causing difficulties of transport which the Bill will undoubtedly do. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour to talk glibly of there being more employment for the industrial workers under competitive enterprise. That is absolute nonsense. There can be no more employment for the transport workers than would normally be provided, not by the private enterprise of road hauliers, but by the activities and energies of the workers in the factories and workshops throughout the country. We shall get a demand for increased transport, not arising from handing over the road transport industry to the vested interests of private enterprise.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I do not think that the hon. Member can very well touch upon that. This Clause deals with the payment of compensation.

Mr. McLeavy: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in the

course of his statement, which would have been more appropriate on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," dealt with the policy which the Ministry of Labour were to apply, and the machinery which they intended to use, in providing employment for any men displaced as a result of the Bill. He was arguing that as a result of that policy compensation might not be such an important factor. The point which I am trying to make is: why should the Ministry of Labour, in view of the need for increasing production, be called upon by the provisions of this Clause to start building up, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, a special section to deal with unemployment arising from the operations of this Bill?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that it is as well to make the position quite plain. This is part of the normal working of the Department, and my main object in saying that is not in any way to suggest that we are expecting a large amount of redundancy. What we want is that every Department of State that can help shall help to make this operation a success. It is to that end that my Ministry is prepared and willing to play its full part.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not provided in this Clause. This Clause provides for the payment of compensation where there is displacement.

Mr. McLeavy: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I do not propose to attempt to answer, tempted as I am, the further interjection of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. I will come, therefore, to the Ministry of Transport.
Under this Clause, the Minister of Transport will bring in Regulations relating to how compensation is to be paid. I am glad that on both sides of the Committee there has been emphasis laid upon the need for the utmost consultation with the trade unions concerned in the industry. I can only underline the view that has generally been expressed throughout the Committee that the Minister should take every possible step to ensure that the trade unions concerned will be consulted in adequate time to allow them to make their representations to the Minister, and to allow the Minister to consider them in detail so that, if possible, there may be discussions as to how the Regulations should be drawn.


I want to raise with the Minister some of the points which I am doubtful whether the Regulations can cover—points on which I think the Committee are entitled to receive some explanation. The road haulage section of the Transport Commission had embarked upon an educational training scheme for its staff in order to train members of the staff to take administrative and eventually, if competent, executive posts. Can the Minister of Transport tell us precisely how there can be compensation for this loss of training under this Clause?
A man may have given 10, 20 or 25 years' service in the transport industry. He is taken over by the State. Plans are made for educational training to fit him for the position of an administrator or an executive. If he is to be denied these facilities under private enterprise, how can the Minister, and how can Parliament, compensate him for his loss of the possibility of going up the ladder to the position of an executive officer?
Another question which arises is that of security of employment. I do not know whether I dare mention again the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who seems to be quite happy about this position. He did not seem to realise that by change of ownership there may be a serious danger to the men employed, whether on the driving or the administrative side. It is perfectly clear to me that in some cases the new owner will prefer, for some reason or other, to take on staff other than those employed by the Transport Commission in this particular section of transport. It may well be that if we break up the undertaking to the extent proposed the administrative jobs will not be there under the new set-up, and these men will be left high and dry.
5.30 p.m.
This is an important matter. If the Government had given as much time and consideration to the welfare and interests of the men serving the industry as they have given to the interests of the Road Hauliers' Association the Opposition would have been happier. With regard to amenities, the bigger undertaking is able to provide canteen arrangements and all kinds of facilities. The long-distance road transport workers have better facilities today than were ever provided under private enterprise, facilities which, judged

by the private enterprise standard, might well not be provided in the case of smaller private undertakings.
These are very important factors, affecting the interests of road transport workers, and we are entitled to a statement from the Minister to allay the very real and serious concern among the men. Will they lose their employment? Will they be given adequate compensation for the losses which arise through the transfer to private industry? I appeal to the Minister to consider these matters very carefully. The Regulations will be all-important. The Minister should allow adequate time for discussion with the trade union movement whose views should be given the utmost consideration. Everything should be done under this miserable Bill to give the men engaged on the road and the railways the very best possible compensation provisions.

Mr. Robert Carr: I wish to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the importance of speed in paying compensation. It is essential not only that compensation should be fair and adequate, but also that those who are entitled to it should obtain it quickly. I hope he will bear that in mind in making the Regulations under subsection (3) when setting out the procedure for making claims and for the making and hearing of appeals. A great deal of hardship can be caused by slowness in paying compensation.
My hon. Friends and I welcome what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour about consultation with trade unions and other staff associations before the Regulations are prepared. We had down an Amendment, which has not been selected, drawing attention to this matter, and we are, therefore, particularly glad that the Parliamentary Secretary gave us such an assurance. My hon. Friends and I feel—I am glad that the feeling is shared by hon. Members opposite—that trade unions should, and must, be consulted in matters which affect the interest of employees. I am sorry that at an earlier stage we could not get the agreement of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who seemed to think that it was wrong that the trade unions should be brought in. My hon. Friends and I believe that in all matters affecting the interests of employees it is right and proper that trade unions and


similar associations of the servants of an industry like this should be brought into consideration.
As soon as we begin to talk about compensation we are faced with the cause of compensation, which is loss of employment. I agree with hon. Members who have said that we want to see compensation paid to as few people as possible. We want the minimum amount of dislocation, and certainly the absolute minimum amount of loss of employment.
We have heard some very highly coloured remarks about the fear of unemployment arising out of the Bill. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) spoke of thousands of people losing their jobs. I gathered that his main fear arose from the road haulage part of the Bill. He said that unemployment would be unavoidable because workers were to be handed over to ruthless private enterprise. The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) voiced the same theme.
How can this happen? What is this bogy about fantastically bad conditions under private enterprise operators in the industry? I am well aware that, in the past, conditions of employment under some employers may have been unsatisfactory. That was by no means confined to this industry. Some of us took a great interest last Friday in the Bill to provide further improvements in the conditions of foundry workers. Hon. Members opposite must realise that in these matters progress has been taking place, and is constantly taking place. That progress is not a monopoly of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Thomas Steele: What was the purpose of the Bill last Friday? If progress had been taking place there would have been no need to introduce it.

Mr. Carr: That is a ridiculous argument. We can never reach perfection in these matters. I hope the day will never come when hon. Members are not bringing forward Measures to bring about further improvements. The party which I represent has a long record of Factory Acts and similar legislation.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Have not all Governments at all times

brought in factory legislation and similar legislation and have they not always been 20 years behind the best employers? We are complaining not about the good employer, but about the many hundreds of employers who do not come up to standard unless they are compelled to do so by legislation.

Mr. Carr: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. All I am saying is that progress is not a monopoly of the Opposition. While there may have been bad employers. there have also been many good ones. Surely, with the present trade union organisation and with the powers which my right hon. Friend will have, not only under the Bill, we can ensure that conditions will be reasonable.
What hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying does not tie up with the facts. Private enterprise employers have no difficulty in getting drivers for their road haulage vehicles. These drivers are not so desperately wedded to the nationalised undertaking that they are reluctant to go to private employers. The fear which hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed has been grossly exaggerated.
I would remind hon. Members of the figures which appear in the Report of the Transport Commission. Out of a total of between 70,000 and 80,000 employees, in the year 1951, 23,045 left the employment of the Commission—and by any standard that is a high rate of wastage and does not suggest that employment under the Commission is so very much better than employment has been in the past, quite apart from what it will be in the future, under private employers.
There is a contradiction in the arguments which we have heard on this subject from hon. Members opposite today. The hon. Member for Eccles argued that many thousands would lose their jobs on the road haulage side, while the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) expressed the fear of redundancies on the railways because the Bill would attract traffic from the railways to road haulage. It cannot happen both ways. If the Bill will create more work for lorries and less for the railways, how can there be large-scale unemployment among lorry drivers? It is not possible. Hon. Members opposite are arguing against each other. Both these things cannot happen; one of the arguments must fall.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: First, unemployment would be created by uneconomic road services being dispensed with. Unemployment could also be caused among railwaymen by the road hauliers duplicating services on the lucrative busy routes and thereby drawing traffic from the rail to the road.

Mr. Carr: That is one of the most absurd fallacies I have ever heard.

Mr. Manuel: Come to the Scottish Highlands and tell them that.

Mr. Carr: It is true that I cannot speak for Scotland. I represent a constituency in the south and live and work in the south. Nevertheless, this idea that before 1947 there was never transport to take goods into the so-called unprofitable areas is nonsense.
What new transport has been introduced in this direction in the last five years? What new industries have been able to grow up in these five years simply because new transport services have been introduced to take their goods? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said yesterday, these services were provided. There always has been and always must be some measure of internal subsidy in any transport system.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On a point of order. Are we still discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," or are we discussing the main purposes of the Bill?

The Chairman: We are discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Carr: I am sorry, Sir Charles, if I have been led rather far afield by interventions of hon. Members opposite.
I will return to the main point: what is the fact about this danger of unemployment? We must all agree that there can be serious unemployment in the transport industry as a result of the new organisation under the Bill only if one thing happens, and one thing only: that is if the transport of the country can be done with fewer people than are doing it at present under the nationalised undertaking.
Do hon. Members opposite say that the nationalised undertaking is so inefficient and is employing so many more people

than are necessary to do the work? Unless they are saying that, this Bill will not create unemployment. After all, the same volume of traffic will have to be carried. Unless it can be carried with many fewer people, there can be no large-scale unemployment created by the Bill. I should have thought that that was an incontrovertible argument.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: It is not so much a question of unemployment as of worsening of conditions.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Can: I feel that I must not go back to that argument, because I fear I was straying rather wide when I was dealing with it. Perhaps I may have another opportunity of entering into argument with the hon. Member on that point.
I say this with great sincerity: I realise that any re-organisation of a fundamental nature of an industry of this kind must cause concern and anxiety to all those who work in it, because if only one worker out of every thousand is affected, until the results are seen, all the other 999 will also suffer anxiety. It is because I realise that, and because I appreciate this anxiety, that I want to make sure that the compensation provided in the Bill is full and fair and is obtainable speedily. Not only do I want to see that this will eventually happen; I also want to make sure that people can, here and now, have confidence that that will be so when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. G. Brown: Following the speech of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) is a little difficult. He said only one thing with which I agree; at the end he said that even if only one out of every thousand workers were affected, the other 999 will be worried. He said that the Regulation made under the Clause should be in a form which appeals to these men, even if they are not affected.
I do not propose to argue at great length whether his highly-coloured and Walt Disney-like description of the road haulage industry is accurate or not. I only ask him to accept from me that those of us who, sometimes as trade union officials and sometimes, earlier, as workers in the industry or children of workers in the industry, could never have recognised the private enterprise road haulage industry from his description of it.


When we had the National Conciliation Board under a very distinguished man, Sir Richard Redmayne, as an experiment in voluntary negotiation in the road haulage industry, it failed, and we had to have a National Statutory Wages Board because the employers said, "Please, you must have a Statutory Wages Board. We are being under-cut by these other chaps and it is making our business impossible."
That happened in 1939, and the makeup of the industry and the identity of the people in the re-created industry which the Government are establishing is almost exactly the same. I ask the hon. Member to recognise that, however much he might think this industry under private enterprise form will live up to his best ideats for private industry—and I credit him with having them—it does not happen, and will not happen, whatever the nature of the people concerned.
It will not happen because of the nature of the job. The whole business of getting road traffic services from one place to another can turn only on one thing—on being able and willing to run a vehicle rather longer or further or in a shorter time. Since it turns on that, the conditions of the men are bound to deteriorate.
That is the problem and that is why the men who work for the British Road Services, whether the one or the 999, are extremely worried about what will happen to them and about whether the Minister has, either in this Clause or in his mind, the right approach to their problem. They are afraid that they will pass from a period of settled, to some extent protected and to some extent secure conditions under which they have been working. Because the previous criterion has not applied, there has not been the same drive to use one man for as long as possible and to break the law in order to do it, as was done under private enterprise.

Mr. Carr: If the position is as the hon. Gentleman has just stated, how does he explain the two facts that 23,045 employees left the employment of British Road Services in 1951, and that private employers find it easy to get drivers for lorries under private enterprise?

Mr. Brown: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's figure. I am saying that the men in the employment of the Road Haulage Executive today are afraid that

they will go from conditions of employment that are attractive, settled, secure and decent to conditions of employment that are not. Therefore, the question of compensation must go wider than the simple question of compensation for loss of office.
I have a good deal of sympathy and understanding, even across the barrier that divides us politically, for the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), but I also have a special interest in the fellows who work the vehicles and keep them running. The problem in their case is not quite the same as the problem of compensation for loss of office by a senior official of the railways.
Some hon. Members opposite were rather pleased at what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said. To show how beauty is in the eye of the beholder let me say that I was horrified at the Minister's whole approach. Some years ago, in a much more humble capacity than that of the Parliamentary Secretary, I had the pleasure of spending two or three years in his Department. I cannot believe that the Ministry of Labour in those days or in the days of the late Ernest Bevin would have displayed—I will use the kindest word I can—the cavalier approach of the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
He talked about what he was going to do, and said he was faced with a very complex business in which there were many difficulties. "The fairest thing I can say," he said, "is that I will look very fully into the problem." This is a problem that the Government are choosing to create and to make worse. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot go to thousands of lorry drivers and mates, and fitters and their mates, in the garages and say, "I am sorry I cannot give you the assurance that good Conservatives want me to give you. The fairest thing I can say is that this is a very difficult problem and I will look fully into it." They are entitled to reply, "You should look into it before you throw this problem at us. It is your decision that we are to be faced with it, and it must be your decision what you are going to do about it."

Mr. Watkinson: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to confuse two entirely different things. My hon. Friend


the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) was dealing with senior railway officials, and I referred to that matter when I said that it was a very complex and difficult problem. When I referred to the functions of my Ministry I said that I did not think it was a difficult problem at all and that it was one with which we fully intended to deal.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems to have only just discovered what he was speaking about. Part of his speech got mixed up with some general observations and was almost irretrievably lost in it. I am sorry that he was not talking about the road haulage operatives. In that case, I cannot understand why, when I interrupted him and asked him how he was going to place men in an area where there was a pocket of unemployment, he did not say he was not talking about them. He gave me what I thought was an answer, and it is only just now that he says that he was not talking about them.
I beg hon. Gentlemen to get out of their minds the idea that there is not going to be a change to worse conditions than those which are now enjoyed in British Road Services. I beg hon. Gentlemen to have regard to such things as welfare work, training work, national negotiating machinery and national consultative machinery, and all the other things which are so much more than the activities actually connected with the day's work. All those things British Road Services provide, and we could not possibly expect any private operator to provide them.
I could not go along, as a trade union official, to a man who has bought a unit of 10 or even 50 lorries and say, "I want you to provide the services and the other things which have gone to make up good conditions of employment." We shall lose something by the mere fact of breaking up this large organisation. Hon. Gentleman opposite are entitled to say that it is well lost, but it is no use their pretending that my chaps are not going to lose something. Of course they are.
Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, we have to face not only the question of limited compensation when a man loses his job but the question whether the Minister intends that this Clause and the Regulations he proposes to make under it shall cover all the people who will lose something which makes their present

working life more attractive to them than it was under the old system. I ask the Minister to give us an answer on that point. Is it his intention to accept the principle that if a man's position is worsened by the loss of the centralised services of British Road Services that man shall rank for compensation? Frankly, I do not see how he can accept it.
But it is not open to the Minister to say that he does not know how he will do it. I am not creating this problem. It is the Minister who is proposing to do so, and to use the Guillotine procedure to that end. He cannot say, "I do not know what I am going to do about this problem, and I am awfully sorry." This is not only a transport problem but a human problem. It is a proposal to rob these men of something while saying, "We are all agreed that it is a miserable thing to do." It is a problem of the Minister's choosing. Is he prepared to give us an assurance that he will not sell off any units until he is able to do what we are asking?
6.0 p.m.
He made a point earlier in the debate that it took us two years after we had passed the Act of 1947 to bring the Regulations out. He says, "I will do better than that. I will have consultations with everybody and will do my utmost to see that the Regulations are ready by the time that these units are sold off." If the Minister says he will undertake to do it, we know that he will do his utmost. But I am entitled to go further and say that he owes it to these chaps to give an undertaking not to break up the organisation, and thereby rob them of something, until he has solved the problem of compensation. Nobody would accept that position for a senior officer or a local government officer or a high civil servant, so why should it be accepted for lorry drivers and their mates?
I hope the Minister will not answer, "This is what you did; these are virtually your words," because the situation is entirely different. If someone promises me a balloon if I buy a quarter of a 1b. of tea, and I buy it, I get the balloon. If, later on, I become a seller of tea and I am still promised a balloon if I buy a quarter of a 1b. of tea, those are the same words, but what is the point of them, since I am no longer buying tea


but selling it? That is what is happening here.
When we used this measure of compensation, what were we doing? We were taking in all the little things and building them up into a big thing in which there would be great chances of promotion. The British Transport Commission were taking in component parts and they had the responsibility of compensating anyone they could not fit into the machine. When that obligation was put on the B.T.C., it was up to them to keep their compensation expenses as low as possible by making the best use of these people. What happens now? We still make the B.T.C. compensate them, but we let other people take things out of the machine. In other words, the buyer of tea has turned into a seller.
Now, however, the B.T.C. cannot decide what use is to be made of those people and it cannot see that they are fitted into the new set-up. All that now happens, therefore, is that B.T.C. have to compensate somebody because somebody else will not fit into the machine. So we are in a reverse position. Frankly, I believe that the Minister just lifted these words out of the Act. I can imagine, from my limited knowledge, a conference around his table attended by all the wise senior civil servants, with a lot of discussion and many proposals coming forward—

Mr. Callaghan: I hope my right hon. Friend will not assume that there was too much discussion, because there was nothing in the White Paper about compensation.

Mr. Brown: Well, I am sure there was one meeting. I can see it. I can hear the Minister asking, "What am I to do about this?" I can imagine the Permanent Secretary pointing out the problem and I can see the Minister, with a gleam in his eye, because he is a wily political bird, saying, "I know; we will put in the words that were in their Act and they will not be able to argue so much because I can say that they were their own words." So they were put in and the wretched civil servants were so overworked that they could not point out that these circumstances were not the same. If I want to make somebody do something, I make them face a penalty if they do not do it. Yet it is no use

my putting a penalty on somebody for something they cannot influence. That is why these compensation provisions are serious.
Now I come to one or two detailed suggestions which I hope the Minister will bear in mind. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there will be early, full and continuing consultation with all the trade unions and bodies concerned. We accept that and are glad to have it on record. I am sure he will be asked questions, and I am therefore doing him a favour in putting the following point to him now so that he has a chance of one more consultation, before he answers questions, outside the House.
Involved in this break-up as a by-product is a wholesale breaking of industrial agreements without notice, without any of the clauses being operated, and being broken not by the will of the employer but upon the instructions of the Government. It is surely unique in the development of industrial relations in this country that a Government should come along and instruct an employer to break industrial agreements without any proposals to replace them. And this comes from the people who talk about the Workers' Charter.
What faith will there be once those industrial agreements are broken in that way? And what compensation will be offered for a wanton, quite unconstitutional, wrongful, forced abrogation of industrial agreements voluntarily entered into? What do the Ministry of Labour have to say about it? What is the advice of the Chief Industrial Commissioner whose job it is to see that industrial agreements are made and kept? What advice will he give to a trade union official who asks, "What do I say and do in these circumstances?" Will he call the two parties together, and what will he do about getting them to meet?
Arising out of the break-up, two things will happen once the units begin to be sold off. Some men will go with the people who buy the vehicles, some will have to stay behind. With regard to those who go, even if their wages in the immediate future are as good as now, even if their ordinary working conditions are as good as now, for how long must that remain so before they are entitled to compensation? Remember these are mostly weekly employees, not monthly.


If they go over to the new concerns tomorrow, if they work a week or a month and then get a week's notice—which is all they are entitled to—are they still entitled to compensation or is the fact that they worked a week enough to rob them of it? We must have an answer to this question, because it is no use talking about human sympathy and understanding unless we know the answer; and it is no use saying that this is a complex problem, because it has to be faced.
What about those who do not go because there is no demand for them? There will be some. The R.H.E. has a redundancy agreement—one of the things we shall lose with the break-up—but presumably while they remain with the Commission the redundancy agreement operates. They get a month's notice under that agreement before they leave. What happens then? Are they entitled to compensation? They have become redundant under their own agreement, but they have done so because the Government have sold off the vehicles. Are they entitled to their redundancy notice and to compensation, or will it be argued that, because they have become redundant under the agreement, they are not entitled to compensation?
I repeat, we want answers on these questions. It is no use talking about human understanding unless the answers are known, and there is no right to break up and to sell off the units until we have the answers.
Then there is the problem of the older driver, the man whom the big organisation can work in. I have the highest of all human reasons for being concerned about this. I know it from the closest possible personal circumstances. What is to be done with the older man, who has a perfectly good chance of earning his corn in the Road Haulage Executive because they can fit him in, but who now has to go into the much more violent competition of private enterprise road haulage, where he must be prepared to do much longer night runs and all that that involves?
There may be a job offered to him. [An HON. MEMBER: "There may not."]
I am taking the best view. A job may be offered to him, but perhaps he cannot hold it. Is he to be refused compensation because a job was offered to him and he

could not stick it, or will it be accepted that morally he cannot do it because he was thrown out of the one that he could do perfectly well?
I have gone on more than I am entitled to do, but this is a vital matter. The Committee are tending to push these things through and, I ask the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) not to deal with them academically. It is true there will be Regulations, but they are negative procedure Regulations. In our Measure they were affirmative. We all know how much chance there is to deal with negative procedure Regulations. I beg the Minister to change that, and I am sure that he will. These are vital things. We ought to discuss them in full and to have the fullest answers. I beg the Minister at least to say that he will not sell off any units until he has the answers to these very important human questions.

Mr. Carr: In answer to an intervention by me earlier, the right hon. Gentleman kindly said that he would refer to wastage and explain why 23,000 people, apparently, want to leave the nationalised service and why so many want to go into private employment.

Mr. Brown: There are several answers. I am sorry not to have dealt with them, but I had already taken too long and some of my hon. Friends were getting worried lest there would not be time for them to speak.

Mr. Callaghan: I should like just to make the point that there is another Clause, to which there are important Amendments, and that we are working under the Guillotine.

Mr. Brown: That is why I did not refer to wastage. In part, this is an industry which attracts the restive sort of man, and it always will. It will always have a higher rate of wastage, as it did in the past. The answer to the hon. Member—I will discuss the figures with him if he likes—is that in part the figures hide various changes that are going on all the time, and numbers are classed as wastage although really they are not.
If there is a higher wastage, it is not as high as the figures would show. There was always wastage in the old days, and it is no criticism of the British Road Services. If the hon. Member wants to


compare the conditions of the two things, let him go now, before the Government break it up, to the British Road Services and study the figures and arrangements, and then look at any private employer's books.

Mr. Renton: rose—

The Chairman: Mr. Renton.

Mr. P. Morris: On a point of order. May we ask for your consideration, Sir Charles? In view of the fact that our discussions are dependent on the operation of the Guillotine and there is another Clause to be discussed, cannot the Government give us the courtesy of the facility to which we are entitled, so that we may hear the Minister?

The Chairman: If hon. Members get up to speak, I call one of them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not getting up to reply. I understand that there was a certain feeling of resentment that there were to be two Ministerial speeches close together. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said, "What about us back benchers? What about agreements made between the two Front Benches?" Then I understood from private talks with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that he did not mind—in fact he wished it—if this debate ran on for quite a time. We all recognise that Clause 27 is more important than Clause 26. That is why we altered the order in the Business Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) has already been called, but immediately after he speaks I am quite prepared to reply.

Mr. Callaghan: It is true that I expressed the hope that we should allow the major part of the time to be taken on this Clause, but I hope it was conveyed to the Minister that we hoped we would finish the Clause at about 6.15, because there are important Amendments on the next Clause. I hope, therefore, it will be possible for the Minister to reply as soon as he catches your eye, Sir Charles.

The Chairman: Of course, I know nothing about the private arrangements.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry that we are not to have an opportunity of a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton),

who, although he may be accused of approaching some problems from an academic angle, knows a great deal about the road haulage industry and certainly has a practical experience of life which equips him to offer valuable contributions.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who made the first Ministerial speech on the Clause. If it was true, as the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) said, that I was shanghaied out of the Colonial Office into the Ministry of Transport, one of the inducements offered to me in the Ministry of Transport was that my hon. Friend was my Parliamentary Private Secretary. No sooner had I been successfully shanghaied than he was transferred and made a Minister himself in the Ministry of Labour. Their again is the loss of my Department.
This has been, on the whole, a very harmonious debate, despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) to raise the atmosphere in its concluding stages. It is a harmonious debate, because although we have violent differences of opinion as to the best way to organise our economic life, we are at one in the desire to minimise the hardship and, as far as possible, the inconvenience to our fellow citizens by these violent changes in the economic set-up.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) said that there was widespread anxiety about the Clause; and no doubt anticipating that this would be my answer, the right hon. Member for Belper said that he hoped I would not reply by saying that we had reproduced almost the exact wording—

Mr. G. Brown: Because the circumstances are different.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will come to that. It will be for the Regulations to take account of the changed circumstances.
I wholly agree that problems such as, for example, that of a man who gets a good job immediately after the sale of a unit and then loses that job, create issues which did not exist, or existed only to a lesser extent, in 1947. It must be for the Regulations to pick up problems of that kind. The broad principles, however, are comparable in both the Act and, now, in our Bill.


In order that the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Bill is not exactly a reproduction of the 1947 proposals as contained in Section 101 of the Act, I must point out that there are two differences. We do not reproduce in our Clause the safeguards given to employees by the Railways Act and by Part VII of the London Passenger Transport Act. We have been advised that this is quite unnecessary, since the rights under these Acts could not be prejudiced in any case as the result of the Clause. Rights under those two Acts remain as sacrosanct as they were before. I say that only because it is conceivable that workers in, say, London Transport might feel that they were being left out. If the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) would like to look at my note, I will let him have it and then, perhaps, he would like to give me some penetrating comment upon it.
The other difference in the Bill as compared with the Act is that we do not provide for the, affirmative procedure. I should be the last person to be able successfully to stand at this Box and defend negative procedure when our predecessors had an affirmative procedure. I certainly think that a case has been made that the Regulations should be treated in the same way as those under the 1947 Act, and I shall certainly advise my colleagues, with whom, naturally, the final decision lies, accordingly.

Mr. David Jones: There is one further difference, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at Section 102 (1) of the 1947 Act, which gave the Minister of that time power to decline to sanction any scheme of transfer until he was satisfied with the compensation arrangements.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My belief is—and I speak subject to correction—that Section 102 is not touched by this Measure. Hon. Members ought at the same time to look at the Third Schedule from which they will see that only the Sections and Schedules of the 1947 Act repealed as a result of this Measure are affected. The remainder, including, I think, Section 102, remain.

Mr. Jones: Do I understand, therefore, that any scheme submitted to the Minister under this Measure will be subject to the same provisions as any scheme submitted under Section 102 (1) of the 1947 Act?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is an entirely new point and I shall have to have another look at it but, so far as I understand, Section 102 remains as obligatory as before, and nothing is done by this Bill to weaken it.
I share fully the view of the hon. Member for Eccles, who made a very moving speech at the beginning of this general debate, that the vast majority of men, whether road or rail workers, are more concerned about security of employment and good and happy employment than about questions of compensation. We believe that as a result of this transfer there will be no loss of opportunity on the roads. We believe that in fact the same volume—we hope in time an ever-growing volume—of goods will have to carry what we trust will be Britain's expanding industrial production. We are not dealing here with a declining industry, but with a growing industry. I do not think we need be unduly disturbed about the chances of employment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) in the course of discussing his three Amendments, referred to the consequences of the third Amendment and the abolition of the Executives. That is one of the reasons I shall ask the Committee to allow us to look again at certain aspects of this Clause. Under the original Bill the Minister could abolish Executives, provided one remained. The only change we make is to take power to abolish all the Executives. It would be a point of great complexity, if someone found he was suffering some loss through the abolition of an Executive, to decide whether that was a result of my taking power to abolish all of them or of the Opposition, when they were the Government, having the power to abolish all but one. We have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view of my hon. Friend, which has been supported on both sides of the Committee, and we will certainly look at this matter again.
I think that the machinery in regard to road hauliers is watertight. All who suffer loss through the consequences of this Measure, along the lines laid down in Section 101 of the 1947 Act, and with Regulations suitably adapted to what I recognise is a different problem, will fall due for compensation. It is in the field of the railways that there are greater difficulties. Here I come up against a


number of problems which we are discussing with the trade unions and which I will discuss with colleagues and those qualified to help.
Talking of discussion, I should like to give this undertaking. When the Labour Government, in 1947, brought out its Road Haulage Compensation Regulations they consulted the Trades Union Congress, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, the British Transport Officers' Guild, the National Association of Local Government Officers, the Scottish Horse and Motormen's Association, the United Road Transport Workers' Association of England, the A.E.U., the E.T.U., the National Union of Vehicle Builders and the Scottish Transport and General Workers' Union. I am perfectly prepared to have as wide a consultation as that. Indeed, if anyone can make out a case for being included, I would err on the side of adding to the list and would certainly not diminish it.
The railway side does provide a problem because the railways can re-organise themselves at any time. It is exceedingly difficult to say that some incident of redundancy is due to an act of the State or due to an act of internal reorganisation within the power of the railways already provided. But I recognise that here we are imposing on the railways, by statute, a statutory obligation, for example, to decentralise. I am approaching the talks with the unions and others with a desire to see that men who suffer through this deliberate act of Government policy will fall into the same categories for compensation as those who are in road haulage.
I have been asked a number of detailed questions and will do my best to deal with them quickly. The hon. Member for Swansea, West asked about the period of action. The period of action is not laid down in the Act of 1947, but in the Regulations. The period is 10 years in the Labour Government's Regulations. I see no reason why it should be different, but that is the sort of point I should like to discuss with the various bodies I have mentioned.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) quite rightly said that where the

railways have an historic and traditional way of looking after these things, we ought to follow that method. That is one of the lines which no doubt the railway unions and the Trades Union Congress will put to me. He asked why there was a difference in the reimbursement to the Commission. The answer is that it would be clearly inequitable to put on the levy the cost of compensation to displaced railwaymen as the levy is an inseparable part of the disposal of the Road Haulage Executive alone.
The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) asked about the educational and training of staffs schemes. I have had a word with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour about this. We will look at it and see whether the Ministry of Labour Training for Industry Scheme can help in that field. This will need a little discussion and thought, and I do not pretend that it will be in every way a satisfactory form of continuation of the existing scheme.

Mr. Mellish: They might as well go to night school.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If they want to go to a real night school, they had better come here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) asked about speed in getting these Regulations out and paying compensation. I could not agree more with him. The Labour Government found it impossible to bring out their Regulations until two and a half years after the passing of the Act, with all the power of the State behind them. The people affected by these Regulations were, very many of them, small people who had not the ample resources of the State behind them. I have already announced that I hope we shall get our Regulations out before the disposal begins, and I will consult with all interested parties. I agree also with my hon. Friend that not only is it important to get the Regulations out quickly but it is equally important to see that the compensation is paid quickly.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Belper confused the road haulier and the railwayman. I believe the road haulage industry is fully safeguarded. Where we express some doubt and are anxious to look again at the Clause—to this alone my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon


directed attention—is in the field of the railways. There I am undertaking, in consultation with the various bodies mentioned, to look at the matter again to see what we can do.
I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for the friendly way in which the discussion has taken place. I hope that it will be taken by workers in this great industry as an earnest of the fact that, although we have political differences and differences of policy, their welfare and interests are dear to both sides of the Committee, although sometimes, reading HANSARD or the daily newspapers on the following clay, they may wonder whether that really is so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26.—(PROVISIONS AS TO PENSION RIGHTS.)

Mr. P. Morris: I beg to move, in page 34, line 11, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): It may be convenient to the Committee to consider with this Amendment the following two Amendments, in line 23, leave out "(b) for amending," and insert "any such regulations may"; and after "aforesaid," insert "amend."

Mr. Morris: I agree, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that it is convenient for these three Amendments to be discussed together.
6.30 p.m.
I want to help the Committee, especially in view of the Guillotine, and I trust that the brevity of my contribution will not be taken as minimising the importance of the item with which we are dealing. I wish to thank the Minister for the statement he has made. We found it reassuring in respect of several important features. Yesterday, and again this afternoon, he emphasised that men attach greater importance to security of employment than to compensation. Of course, broadly speaking, that is true. But the Minister will appreciate that thousands of people in the industry are also very worried about their provision for superannuation, and they are anxious that nothing in this Bill shall interfere with their pension rights.
In view of his limited experience in the transport world, the Minister is a very refreshing witness, and we are grateful to him for the trouble he has taken regarding many matters. I hope, therefore, he will not think it presumptuous on my part if I remind him that this story of pensions or superannuation is a very long one. So far as trade unions are concerned, the outcome is the result of a tremendous struggle over a very long period. In my own sphere we have been working on it for something like 40 years.
I do not want to be ungrateful about the measure of consideration given by an earlier Government when, after a great deal of agitation, arrangements were made to get consolidated funds for the most important lines. But now that there are such tremendous changes impending in the transport world, hon. Members are anxious to have an assurance that the existing statutory railway funds will not be interfered with in any way.
I am not a lawyer, and the advice I have been given is that under the Clause there is no danger to the existing funds. But if the Minister can reassure us, we shall be grateful. There are many people who are in funds that are not statutory, and we would like to think that they will be given the same safeguard. If they are not, we should, on Report stage, endeavour to find ways and means of helping them. Young people may be a little indifferent to the prospects of superannuation, but when servants and officers have been engaged for 20, 25 or 30 years it is hopeless for them, on quitting their employment, to find work in some different sphere. They have been specially trained for the work in railway transport and the road haulage industry, and unless their future, so far as superannuation is concerned, is guaranteed, they will have many anxious moments.
Another feature which is troubling us is the fact that there are thousands of employees who are now paying into provisional funds, by agreement with the unions and the B.T.C. The B.T.C. have given the unions an undertaking, as and when we can agree on the actual terms, that they will set up a superannuation fund which will provide for the men now making provisional payments. We would like to think that their position is fully safeguarded.


The 1947 Act provided for pension appeal tribunals, but our experience of such tribunals causes us to feel that we would like to have another look at them in order to eliminate some unsatisfactory features. I beg the Minister to realise that this question of pensions is a natural corollary to the matter with which we are dealing. The two things are complementary. Men wish to be assured of security of employment and also, having given their lifetime to a particular industry, that the superannuation which they have, endeavoured to provide for themselves will be forthcoming. If the Minister can assure us on those points, I shall be content to bow to the Guillotine, and to thank him for any promise which he may make.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) for the expressions he has used. Had the electorate decided otherwise, I might have been his neighbour in South Wales, but unfortunately they decided to keep the hon. Gentleman who is, I think, now the father of the House.
I agree that this is a very important Clause and the fact that the Committee have taken so much longer over the compensation Clauses will not, I hope, lead anybody to think that we are not concerned about the preservation of existing pension rights and the carry-over of any of those rights into a life which may be different for a number of the men concerned. I know of the great interest of the hon. Gentleman in the salaried staff funds, wage rates and pensions schemes of the old railway companies and the Commission.
I have had a number of talks with the Commission on this matter, and with the unions, and fundamental problems arise for which I think any Government would find it difficult to provide an early solution. I can give this assurance, that all the existing statutory funds are absolutely untouched by this Clause, which is solely designed to try to see that men and women who have pension rights do not lose those rights as a result of this Bill.
I am prepared to accept these three Amendments, and I am glad that they have been introduced. I agree that wherever possible there should be an absolute obligation on the Minister of the

day to do whatever is possible to protect the pension rights of any unfortunate enough to lose pensionable employment through the Bill.
Actually, the former Labour Government's own Act did not make this obligatory on the Minister. I think it read, "The Minister may," in the case of pensions. We are prepared to say, "The Minister shall." I think it important that we should get quite clear exactly what this means, because I want people to know the maximum of their rights. But at the same time I do not want in any way to mislead any who may be following this debate.
The purpose of the Regulations under this Clause will be to preserve to the greatest possible extent pension rights already earned before the loss of employment. Supposing for example, someone who was in a pension scheme in a private transport business went into the Road Haulage Executive's employment. He might have behind him 15 or 20 years of pension contributions. If he now loses employment, he would receive a pension at retiring age based on that length of service.
It would not be possible to make any provision for a man to earn a further pension after he leaves the Commission. He may go to a firm with its own pension scheme, in which case we have drawn subsection (2) of this Clause in such a way that the Regulations may provide that he can carry over into the new employment all his accrued rights, whatever the terms of the employment scheme into which he is going to enter.

Mr. Sparks: Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that if the pension scheme of British Road Services is superior to the scheme in a man's new employment, he would be entitled to retain the benefits under the better scheme, or would he have to accept the new scheme which might not be quite so good?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All I have said is that he will retain the contributions he has made which will rank towards pension if he goes into a firm with its own pension scheme.
If he does not, what would happen? Normally, when a man leaves a job he loses any rights in any pension scheme associated with it, unless, of course, he


leaves the job on the termination of his employment, when his pension is due. In the best schemes he gets back his own contributions, but usually, I am advised, the rules of the schemes involve this consequence and allow for no alternative.
We propose to get free of this obligation, to override such rules and to ensure that the man receives the benefit, possibly as a deferred annuity, not only of his own contributions but the contributions put in by his employer on his behalf. The hon. Member for Swansea, West spoke about provisional payments which have been made. They would fall to be dealt with in this way. The man would be entitled to recover any provisional payments made.
Some trade unionists have suggested to me that the expectation of a pension right is a valuable asset. Where it is only a question of a year or so, it would not be a very marketable commodity. I will discuss that further with the unions and others, but I could not hold out any hope on that limited field. But over the main field, which I know is what mostly worries hon. Gentlemen opposite, I give the assurance that I have given. I am pleased to accept these three Amendments to make the provision obligatory upon the Minister.

Mr. P. Morris: I am worried about what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the provisional payments. There are many who are paying into this provisional fund. The Commission are already committed to set up a fund to cater for them on a permanent basis. The delay has been due to failure to agree on the actual terms of a scheme, but there is the arrangement on the part of the Commission that they should provide a fund as soon as the negotiating parties have reached agreement. I hope that the Minister will not lose sight of that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I will not lose sight of that. We agree that the man should get back his contribution and the employer's contribution as well. He can carry those into another job with a pension scheme, as an accrued annuity or in some other way, and get what he has contributed for already. But the qualification which I feel obliged to put—and it is only fair to do so straight away—is whether or not the expectation of a pension scheme which has not yet arisen is a valuable commodity.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman says that it is. How could he in practice administer any provision of that kind? The road haulage services are four years old. I do not know how long these provisional payments have been going on. I should be interested to know. I ought to know.

Mr. Morris: Two years.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Provisional payments for two years would be recovered, but the expectation that after 20 years there might be a pension could not be compensated for. A pension could not be given, though it is for consideration whether or not this is something which could be dealt with in the Regulations dealing with compensation. That is another matter. One could not give an undertaking that there will be a pension right attached, though repayment will be made of the money already paid.

Mr. Morris: What of the men who are retained in the employment of the Commission? Will they be transferred to one of the existing funds?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a matter for the Commission. I have no doubt that they will do that for the men who are retained. Throughout on questions of wages and salaries, pensions schemes and in all these other fields, the Commission have shown every anxiety to live up to their reputation as very good employers.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In line 23, leave out "(b) for amending," and insert "any such regulations may."
In line 23, after "aforesaid," insert "amend."—[Mr. Callaghan.]
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Callaghan: I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to make some comments about this Clause. I should like to acknowledge our thanks to the Minister for accepting the three Amendments. We readily appreciate that he has met the point of view put to him by the trade unions, and for that we are grateful.


I do not know why they should insist upon the word "shall" being better in the case of a Conservative Government than the word "may" in the case of a Labour Government. Perhaps it would be indelicate to explore that matter too far. At any rate, there seems to have been some point that has concerned them, and the Minister has recognised that perhaps a Labour Government's "may" has at least the equivalent value of a Conservative Government's "shall." It would not be for me to dissent from a point of view like that.
There are important questions about these pension provisions, especially in the case of members of the Road Haulage Executive who have brought in pension rights, who have accumulated further pension rights during the time they have been in the service of the Commission, and who may now have to leave the service of the Commission and go into an industry where there are no pension rights. I am not clear—perhaps I should be—in what way those rights will be preserved. Will their superannuation contributions and the employer's contributions be repaid to them at the moment they leave, or will they in fact be able to regard the superannuation rights that they have accumulated over a period of years as being frozen up to the date of retirement? I gather that the latter is correct.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is the sort of question which I should like to discuss with the unions and others. The present intention would be that they would be held frozen until the man in question reached retiring age, but I am prepared to consider—though it may raise other problems of Government policy and general considerations—an alternative procedure.

Mr. Callaghan: It seems to be at least a good starting point that these super-annuation contributions from both sides should be regarded as frozen and payable to a man when he could normally expect to retire. It would be a reduced pension, as it were. That is a very good starting point for the negotiations. I hope that, if the unions wish to put it to the Minister that further concessions should be made in that way, he will be willing to consider them.
For example, the sort of case that they might wish to put to him is that of a man who has no desire to draw his superannuation rights because they are frozen and because they are a safeguard for the future. He may find himself falling on bad times because he has gone into another industry, or indeed into a part of the private road haulage industry, which has not come up to his expectations and in which he cannot qualify for any compensation. It may be that the unions would like to put to the Minister a proposal that, in such a case, a man should be able to draw a certain part of his superannuation rights, not by way of advance pension but perhaps by way of commuting it into a lump sum.
All these are complications which I fully recognise would have to be dealt with by Regulations. I am sure that some reasonably satisfactory arrangement will be made. It follows on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said that a man who has had an umbrella for his old age over his head which, by the action of someone else, is taken away leaving him out in the cold—especially once he has passed the age of 40—starts to look askance at the future. It is of the greatest importance—and I believe that it is the desire of the Minister to meet such cases—that they should be assured that the action of the State, an action the rights and wrongs of which we can argue on other Clauses, which has deprived them of that cover should not operate to their disadvantage. That is what we wish to ensure.
The other point is that we notice that subsection (5) provides that the Regulations:
… shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of any resolution of either House of Parliament.
We put it to the Minister that this is another matter which he should reconsider while he is considering what his line of action should be on the whole question. For reasons which I shall not waste time in advancing now, we suggest that there should be an affirmative rather than a negative Resolution for this purpose.

Mr. Sparks: I want to put one point to the right hon. Gentleman by way of further development of the point which I put to him earlier, probably not in clear language. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the Transport Act,


1947, Regulation 1612, which was made in September of this year, provided for the pensions of employees of the transferred undertakings, with specific reference to whole-time employees of the road haulage undertakings which were acquired by the British Transport Commission., That Regulation makes it quite clear that they are to give to an employee who enters their service pension rights the same or as good as those which he had before the transfer, subject to the same conditions.
The Explanatory Note says:
The pension payable is to be reduced if the employee has already received from the fund a return of his contributions, but he is to have an opportunity to refund the amount received and if he does so his full pension rights are to be restored.
The Regulation was based upon the principle that the value of pension rights of a transferred employee was to be as good in the employment of the British Transport Commission as it was in his previous employment. Is that to apply in the reverse direction now? I was not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman said it would be or not, because it is obvious that a road haulage employee may be transferred to a private firm in which the pension scheme is far less in value to him than would have been the pension scheme in the road haulage organisation.
If he can be permitted to transfer to the pension scheme of his new employer and retain his pension rights under the old scheme, even if that might involve, to some extent, an increased contribution on his part, that would be desirable. We all know that there may be a number of different pension schemes attaching to private organisations which, perhaps, in some cases may be superior and in other cases may not be as good as that of the Road Haulage Executive. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that he intends in the new Regulations to maintain that principle, as embodied in the Regulations issued under the 1947 Act in regard to this matter, I am sure that would give satisfaction to all of us.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I say straight away, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that there is no pension scheme. There is only this provisional payments scheme, so that there is nothing that the British Transport Commission or the Road Haulage Executive could transfer to a private operator—

Mr. Lindgren: I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to mislead the Committee, but in fact there were some road haulage undertakings which did have pensions schemes. Some of them have been taken over, and some of these people have been dispersed. Some of them will be taken away with a couple of lorries which the Minister is going to give away to some of his pals. We are concerned about the fellow who entered into the road haulage organisation 15 or 20 years ago and who may now be a manager in Lancashire.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman did not let me finish the sentence. There is no quarrel between us over the facts. In 1947, it was provided in the Labour Government's Measure that, where there were pensions rights in private firms, these could be taken over by the British Transport Commission. If there was a working transport pensions scheme under the Road Haulage Executive now, quite other considerations would arise, but all there is are these provisional payments, and we have provided that these provisional payments shall go forward and be credited to the man in the way, which I will discuss in a wider field. most suited to the circumstances.
I think that, even if there were a pensions scheme under the British Transport Commission, we must as realists recognise that, although there may have been a number of large firms in road haulage, the diversity of the industry will be rather as it was in 1947, with a large number of comparatively small employers. If we are anxious about the continued employment of all British Road Services drivers, nothing is less likely to secure that than to have an obligation imposed on a man who has two lorries to pay pensions, perhaps for life, to men now entering his employ.

Mr. Lindgren: We have had an example in the Minister's speech which just shows how, under these de-nationalisation proposals of the Tory Government, they are even going far worse than normal private enterprise. If, in fact, there is an amalgamation or a change-over of two firms, any reasonable trade union officer always secures, even under private enterprise, that, as far as those who are absorbed are concerned, their conditions of service and rates of pay are not worsened.


Let us see what the Minister is saying in this Clause. Let us take the case of a man who was in one of the largest road haulage undertakings. So far as the larger undertakings were concerned, the men's rates of pay and conditions of service were reasonable, and there was a trade union agreement. It was the thousand and one little hauliers who avoided trade union rates of pay, hours and statutory conditions. Now, under this larger British Road Services organisation, fellows who have come in with road haulage experience have been transferred to various parts of the country.
Under this Bill, the units are to be sold in small lots, so that the man who has made progress and is now assistant depot manager somewhere in a rural area is going to find that 10 or 15 lorries from that depot are to be sold and that his job has gone. The Minister is really saying that the man with up to 25 years' service in road haulage, who, at the behest of one Government, gave his services to the larger organisation and went away to give the benefit of his experience to a rural organisation, is now to be left high and dry, without the Government saying that any employer who takes him over must at least provide as good conditions of service as those he enjoyed in his old job.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Surely, the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee. Let me make this plain. In so far as the record of service for a long time with a big firm is concerned, there would be a very strong likelihood of his getting back into some other comparable firm, not only with his accrued pensions contributions from his earlier private employment, but also his contributions from the British Transport Commission and those made by himself.

Mr. Lindgren: I wish that were true, but the Minister, in the discussion on an earlier Clause, prevented the British Transport Commission from maintaining more than an additional one-fifth of the number of vehicles they had at the time of the 1947 Act, so that the Minister places a limitation on the man's pension rights. Let us take, as an example, a man with Pickford's or some other undertaking. Because of his large-scale experience, he had the opportunity of moving out, and now wants to come back

to this organisation, if they will have him and if the Commission would like them to do so. I hope that some men may be able to do it, but no guarantee can be given because, under the Bill, the British Transport Commission are limited to an addition of only one-fifth to the vehicles held by them at the time of the 1947 Act, and to suggest otherwise is, I think, rather leading people to believe that something is likely to happen when it is not.
Therefore, I feel that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking this action simply from the point of view of breaking up an organisation because they feel that private individuals and private profit are of greater concern than service to the community or the wages and conditions of the people in the industry.
The last point concerns the people within the industry—
It being Seven o'Clock, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders. to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 24.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO GENERAL DUTY AND CONSTITUTION OF COMMISSION, ETC.)

Mr. Arthur Holt: I beg to move, in page 31, line 34, to leave out paragraph (b).
So that the Committee may follow the case I wish to put before it, I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the new Clause—"London Passenger Transport Board"—on page 300 of the Order Paper standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Friends and myself. This new Clause is relevant to this particular Amendment, and begins:
All property in the possession of the London Transport Executive under the scheme of delegation from the British Transport Commission shall be transferred to a body corporate to be known as the London Passenger Transport Board.
Whatever the merits or demerits of this proposition, I do not propose to argue it at any length on the technical question of whether, assuming that we went back to a separate London Transport Board, we should get sufficient co-ordination between that Board and the new set-up that is going to run the railways. Under the system that existed before the 1947 Act, there was a joint co-ordinating board set


up between the main line railway companies and the then London Passenger Transport Board. I am advised that that liaison machinery worked just as well as any similar arrangement made since. In fact, under the 1947 Act that liaison machinery was done away with, and the Commission have had to set up non-statutory liaison machinery of their own to fill in the gap.
Whatever the arguments for or against this proposition on those particular grounds, I do not propose to go into them, but rather to concentrate on two other points. I would remind the Committee of a point of historical interest which is that for many years the railways of the London Passenger Transport Board always found it very difficult to make ends meet. In fact, they failed to provide sufficient money with which to pay the full rate of interest on the junior L.P.T.B. "C" stock, and one of the reasons for the original monopoly being given to them was in order that the buses which paid could help to support the tubes which did not pay.
I propose to deal with this matter from two other aspects which, I suggest, are equally as important as the organisational one. They are, firstly, the question of responsibility, or lack of responsibility, of the London Transport Executive at the moment for the financial success of their undertaking, with some of the dire results that it has had during the recent years, and, secondly, the misconceptions in the minds of the public, both in the country at large and in London, as to whether London Passenger Transport is subsidising the rest of the country, or vice versa.
On the financial side, my information is that there is a general feeling among transport people that the technicians under the London Transport Executive have got their head and are in control. Some substance would seem to be given to that if only by the remarks often made in this House that the London buses are the finest in the world. That in itself may be a very commendable thing and something to which no one should take exception, provided that the financial results at the end of the year are as good as those of other companies who do not set the same high technical standards.
Let us see what has happened in regard to fares. Up to the end of 1951,

the increase above pre-war in the fares of the main line railway was 77 per cent., whereas in the case of London Transport it was only 43 per cent. Now, the increase in the rest of the country is 90 per cent. above pre-war whereas the increase in London represents only 71 per cent.
When considering this matter, one should realise that the railway side of the London Transport Executive has a capital value of something like £105 million. As we all know, last year the railway side made a net profit of just over £500,000, which represents a return of just under ½ per cent. on what might be termed its capital. On the other hand, the road services, which, of course, had never previously made a loss, showed a loss of £2 million during the same period.
It is as well to observe what is said in the Fourth Annual Report of the British Transport Commission for 1951 in relation to this question. On page 20 of the Report there are diagrams showing the surpluses and deficits of the London Transport road services and the London Transport rail services for the years 1948–51 inclusive, from which it will be seen that the road services went down each year until last year there was a deficit, and that the rail services also went down slightly each year, although in their case the surpluses were very small.
It is as well to notice in this connection that on page 26 of the Report there is a list of the various charges per mile for the various categories of transport. The ordinary fare of the London Transport Central bus in December, 1951, was 1¼d. per mile, whereas the fares of bus services such as Tillings or the Scottish were less. The fare charged by the London Transport Green Line service was 1.32d. per mile.
One would expect that in some cases charges in London would be higher than in other parts of the country, but whatever the London charges might be, I do not think there can be any question that London must stand by itself.
All these results and the trouble over the fare increases at the beginning of the year have created many misconceptions in people's minds, and as recently as 11th November Lord Latham, chairman of the London Transport Executive, thought it necessary to write a letter to "The Times" explaining that although there


had been these increases in fares in London they were not subsidising the rest of the country. He took considerable trouble over the matter and he pointed out that
… it is essential that any impression to the contrary should be removed.
After explaining a lot of figures, some of which appear to me to be wrong, he stated:
It follows that passengers who use the London Transport services are still paying less—not more—than the cost of providing these services.
I feel that all this is largely brought about by the fact that the financial responsibility for the results of trading at the end of the year have been removed from London Transport Executive. Where they were with the old Board they have now been removed to the Commission, and the position is made worse by the functional nature of the present Executive. Those in charge have their own departments which they wish to build up. They say "Yes, yes," and there is nobody saying "No" where there is some question of capital expenditure on a desirable development which everybody wants but which costs money.
The Executive themselves appear to be rather stronger on this matter than the Commission. If the Commission were tough enough the present policy might work, but it is not working and we have seen the results. It may be one thing and a quite desirable thing to subsidise the Highlands, but I suggest that it is quite a different thing for Lanarkshire, Yorkshire and other parts of the country to subsidise London. I do not see that this problem will ever be adequately solved unless London is placed once again under a separate board. That is the purpose of the Amendment and of the new Clause, which appears on a later page of the Order Paper.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I do not propose to speak at length on the Amendment, but it might be useful if I make clear the attitude of the official Opposition to it. I confess that until I heard the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) I could not quite understand why proposals regarding London transport should emanate from Bolton. But I gather that the reason why he wants to put London Transport Executive back into the position of the old London

Transport Board is because he considers that at present London is being subsidised by some of his constituents.
We oppose this Amendment because we do not think that London transport would gain in any way if it were segregated from the Transport Commission now that it has been absorbed within it. I think that London is a special case because it is the centre of the United Kingdom and as a metropolis attracts people from all over the country. And if at present on occasions there is some subsidisation of London Transport by the rest of the transport system, it can be fully justified on those grounds.
I thought that the hon. Member for Bolton, West was a little unfair to London Transport Executive in the criticisms which he made. The London Transport system is accepted as the finest in the world at the present time. Foreigners who come here are invariably full of admiration for our transport service and the efficiency with which London transport operates. It has always had great difficulties to face but has succeeded in overcoming a great number of them. If it had not been for the imaginative proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in the 1929–31 Parliament, and if he had not conceived this particular type of Board, London today certainly would not have as efficient a transport service as it has, nor would the system be in the same financial position.
7.15 p.m.
Because of the integration of London transport the increase in costs has been far higher than the rise in fares, and at the end of 1951 fares had only gone up by 71 per cent., whereas costs had gone up by 120 per cent., the gap having been met by the economies and greater efficiency which had become possible. To a certain extent the increased efficiency of London Transport has been due in recent years to its absorption within the Transport Commission as a whole.
I should remind the hon. Member for Bolton, West that the reconstruction of the finances of London Transport, which have taken place as a result of the Transport Act, 1947, has reduced its transport charges very substantially. As a result of the reconstruction of the capital, the Commission stock was substituted for the old


London Transport Board stock. That has meant that the contribution it has to make to the central fund is not as large as was the interest which it had to pay on the old stock, although London Transport was never able to meet its full obligations on that old stock. If that change had not taken place one fears what would have happened. There was some threat of receivership, and capital reconstruction would have been necessary.
There are several reasons why it is preferable that the London Transport Executive should remain and should not be segregated from the Commission. The chief reason is that it works in co-operation with the suburban lines, and it is not possible to separate the organisation and operation of the London Transport system from that of suburban railways. Before the Transport Commission came into being, there was, of course, a pooling system between the two, but better organisation and closer co-operation has been possible as a result of association with the Commission.
I express a hope, therefore, that the Minister will not accept the Amendment which has been moved and will leave London Transport as it is. I regret very much that the only action which is being taken with regard to London Transport in this Bill is one which would put it in a worse position. That is, it is being deprived of the right to operate contract carriages. We only had a truncated discussion on that, owing to the Guillotine. It means a quite unjustified loss to London Transport. Here there is in operation competition which, we are frequently told, it is the purpose of this Bill to increase. But when there is competition between private enterprise and a public service, as there is in this case, the Minister puts an end to it. Apart from that, the Bill does not touch London Transport, as far as I can see, and for that we are grateful. We suggest that there should be no further interference with it.

Mr. Norman Cole: I do not expect that my right lion. Friend the Minister of Transport will find himself in a position to accept the Amendment, but I should like to draw his attention to this matter. I do not share the complacency of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) about the position of London Transport.
My whole object is to ask the House at some time to consider the peculiar difficulties of London with a view to helping the Transport Executive. I am not pressing for its segregation now, but I am quite certain that at some time or other in the ensuing years it will be necessary to pay special attention to the financial and traffic problems of London.
I should declare my interest in this matter. Although my constituency is nearly 40 miles from London, it is served by the London Transport Executive and, as I have said before in the House, my constituents have a very personal interest in this matter. The London Transport area, as is not generally known by most people, goes a very great way beyond London. It is a very large undertaking covering a very large area. Nevertheless it does take its life blood from the core of London as we know it, and this core is in a peculiar and particular position which is rather more complicated than was made out by the hon. Member for Enfield, East.
That position is made up of four particular difficulties. Firstly, the surroundings of London are a dormitory area for some eight million people who work there. That is a problem which has no parallel anywhere in the world, and it raises particular difficulties.
The second point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Enfield, East, is that London is the capital city of the Empire and, as such—and to our pride—provides facilities in the form of a transport service which we are happy to have our visitors see and use. But the financial burden of the provision of those facilities falls upon the people living in and around London and, since the benefit of those facilities is enjoyed by the whole population of these islands, it is not fair that the whole of the expense should be borne by the people of London.
Thirdly, there is the well-known fact that the cost of living is higher for those who work and live in and around London as compared with the rest of the population. London has special traffic problems, and I feel that any consideration of those problems should take into account the domestic financial position of the people who live and work in London.
The fourth point, which is most important, is that the railway undertakings, particularly under the new regions, are


able to help any passenger traffic losses by means of their freight traffic; but the London Transport system has no such advantages because it does not carry freight. I am not suggesting that it would be practicable for it to do so. London is the focus of the main line stations, and I do not think it would be possible to introduce a freight system for the London Transport Executive. But I think that fact should be borne in mind in any review of the position of London.
Finally, I would refer to the question whether or not the London Transport Executive should be included in the British Transport Commission. There is no urban undertaking of the size of the London Transport Executive which is contained within the ambit of the British Transport Commission, and if we are to have the unique position of an undertaking of this size—the largest in the world—necessarily being brought into a nationalised undertaking, we should make a careful review of the position in which it finds itself.
I am quite certain that whatever may be the truth of whether London subsidises the rest of the country or the rest of the country subsidises London—if either of those statements be true, and I am not quoting figures to prove either of them—I am quite certain that there is justification for an inquiry. It may leave the position as it is now, but I am certain that the average person in or near London is not satisfied with what is happening at the present time.
I am sure that at some future time we could look into the position of these two undertakings—the British Transport Commission and the London Transport Executive—to the benefit of the population as a whole. I do not press the Minister in support of the hon. Member's Amendment. I think the proposed new Clause might go too far, but I should like his Ministry to address their attention to these problems in the future.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): There are many important Amendments to be discussed in this sector of our arrangements, and I hope the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) will not think me discourteous if I do not reply at great length on this Amendment. He and his friends

attempted to raise this matter on Clause 14, but they were prevented from doing so under the procedure which is now operating. The hon. Member has now had an opportunity to deploy the argument in favour of his point of view.
If carried, this Amendment would prevent any re-organisation scheme of the B.T.C. railways dealing with any part of the passenger services at present operated by the London Transport Executive, and if it were accepted by the Committee it would greatly handicap, if not entirely rule out, any future adjustment of services between the big main line railways and the London Transport system.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) at once that on this matter, anyhow, the minds of the Government and the Opposition are attuned, though possibly for very different reasons. Our reason has been reiterated over and over again. This may be my last opportunty of referring to it—this being the last day of the Committee stage—but I think it is worth repetition even at this late hour.
In this Bill Her Majesty's Government have two main objectives—the return of long-distance road haulage to private hands and the de-centralisation of the railways of the British Transport Commission. It is not part of our policy to subject the Commission to any disruption or dislocation beyond what is necessary to obtain those two objectives. The deletion of this paragraph would have the general effect of restoring the position under the London Passenger Transport Act of 1933 and it would divorce London financially and in all other respects from the operations of the British Transport Commission.
Quite apart from anything else, this would immediately raise extremely complex financial implications. All the elaborate arrangements which were made under the 1933 Act—and no one is more familiar with those than the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was responsible in some degree at least for its initiation—for the pooling of receipts and their apportionment would have to be revived now in the year 1953 in a more complicated form.
It was never our intention under this Bill to disturb the London Transport Executive and for that reason I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Holt: All the three speeches which have been made have only confirmed me in my view that what will be required in the future, if it is not done now, is the running of London Transport by a separate statutory body.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) did nothing but make an apology for the fact that London is subsidised by the rest of the country. The same thing was done by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole). I do not want to delay the Committee, as I know there are many other important things to discuss, but I would say that if the Minister will not accept this Amendment I hope he will, if he has not done so already, come to the conclusion that he can do much that I would like to see done in the present setup and will see that under the new reorganisation scheme the financial responsibility is put back on the London Transport Executive as much as possible, so that they really are responsible for making both ends meet at the end of the year.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Holt: I beg to move, in page 32, line 14, to leave out "ten," and to insert "fourteen."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am wondering whether it would be considered possible to discuss together the various Amendments concerning the composition of the Commission, and whether there would be any advantage in that.

The Chairman: What I had intended to do was to call the present Amendment together with the one immediately before it, in line 14, in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), but that Amendment has not been moved. I think the next three Amendments, in lines 15, 18 and 19 should go together, and with the Amendment in line 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) should go the Amendments in lines 25 and 26, the two in line 27, that in line 28, the two in line 29 and that in line 34, all of which follow one another. If that would be for the convenience of the Committee, I think we could cover the whole field in one discussion.

Mr. Callaghan: That would be for the convenience of the Committee, and again I must ask for the clemency of the Committee because there is an important issue which comes immediately after this Amendment, and I know that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) is doing his best to assist us.

Mr. Holt: I think the whole point of this Amendment and the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) was brought about by the suggestion that there would possibly be no Executives, and in that event it is felt fairly widely that there must be a considerably larger board to run the railways and their ancillary undertakings. If the number is made up to 14—here again, I agree there is nothing sacrosanct about 14—then it would be possible for the Commission to divide themselves up from time to time into sub-committees to concentrate on some particular line of transport. Possibly they might be standing committees. A committee might be set up for a particular purpose, but if the Commission is left only to the number of 10, it might not be large enough. The fact that some of the Amendments to be discussed are concerned with the types of people who should be brought into this board, adds strength to the argument that it should be considerably increased in number.

Mr. Braithwaite: If it is the desire of the Committee to indicate our attitude towards this narrow issue before we get to the wider one, we shall be happy to do so, but my right hon. Friend feels he would like to hear the general discussion on this composition of the Commission before coming to a decision on this particular point about its numerical sides. It should be quite possible to make a statement on that on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Holt: As I understand it, the the Minister has an open mind and—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Wide open—

Mr. Holt: —will make his decision after hearing the debate on the subsequent Amendments. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I beg to move, in page 32, line 15, to leave out paragraph (b).
Perhaps it might assist the Minister in considering the last Amendment, which was withdrawn, if I say that in principle we would be disposed to favour it. I see the Minister's point that it might be more easy for him to pick up the threads and make a general statement on this issue when he has heard the full discussion on these Amendments. I am moving the first of the three Amendments which are to be taken together, the other two being in lines 18 and 19.
The point that is raised here is the question of the minimum provision of full-time members. In the 1947 Act it was provided that the chairman and not fewer than four members of the British Transport Commission should be full-time. That left elasticity and discretion for the Minister to decide who should be full-time. In fact, at this moment it is a mixed body of full-time and part-time members.
I favour the doctrine of a mixed body of that character, because I think it is right that there should be an element of full-time and part-time members, the latter bringing in experience from outside to prevent the Commission becoming too monastic and to bring a breath of fresh air into the Commission's proceedings from outside. I regard it as part of the duty of the part-time members to be critical of the administration, including the full-time members. Therefore, I feel that the doctrine of full-time and part-time members is right.
But the Minister, in subsection (2, b), is providing for the repeal of the provision in the 1947 Act which requires that not fewer than four men other than the chairman should render whole-time service. The only requirement left is:
… only the chairman and such other members, if any, as the Minister thinks fit shall be required to render whole-time service to the Commission.
While it is true that the Minister can include full-time members, if he wishes, in addition to the chairman, he is not obliged under this proviso to appoint any full-time members other than the chairman of the Commission. We take the view that the chairman and four members should be full-time.
This brings me to Clause 24 (1) which indicates the general duties of the Commission. It is a pretty considerable list. It is inherent in the existence of the Commission that they are—and I think the Minister will agree with this—the general planning, policy and wider financial authority for such transport services as will remain vested in the Commission itself. That is a pretty big job, which requires a good deal of work and attention. I do not think it should be wholly in the hands of salaried chief Officers and subordinate officials, but I think that some of it should be supervised by full-time members of the Commission.
Subsection (1) specifically provides "railway services for Great Britain." I appreciate that the Commission may provide them through the area organisations which it is proposed to set up. Nevertheless, the Commission has to make the scheme, and presumably it will have some duties of general co-ordination and supervision and may have some direct executive functions in connection with part of the railway undertakings. It says that the Commission shall
… provide or secure the provision of an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport …
in London, and shall also
… provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, other transport services and facilities for traffic on inland waterways …
The Commission is also to deal with port facilities
… to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient …
that is to say, in
… places in which they were providing port facilities on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-two …
These are considerable duties. Moreover, the Minister takes power under the Bill to abolish the whole of the Executives if he is so minded. It has been pointed out that under our Act of 1947 the Minister was only obliged to appoint one Executive and need not have appointed any more and had power to scrap all of them except one, but the amended provision in this Bill relating to the power of the Minister to scrap all the Executives rather indicates that the Government have in mind the reduction of the Executives.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a very important matter and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. The Road Haulage Executive is, of course, being wound up as part of the process of disposal. The Railway Executive, if not abolished before, will be abolished when the scheme is submitted. That leaves three other Executives.
The London Transport Executive will obviously remain as a separate body, though it might be thought convenient by the Commission to give it another name and slightly to alter its status, but that I do not know, and I do not want to prejudge the issue. The future of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive and the Hotels Executive will fall to be decided in the scheme to be submitted by the Commission. Should the Commission wish it, this gives me or my successor freedom to give the two remaining Executives some different status within the structure of the Commission. I should not have to come back to Parliament for further power.

Mr. Morrison: Does that include abolition?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could abolish everything but one under the right hon. Gentleman's own Act, but the Commission might wish, and it might be considered desirable, to abolish them all and retain in some other form than with Executives the services which the last two Executives I mentioned are now giving.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I think the Minister has stated it fairly, but at the end of the day it still is the case that the Commission and the Minister between them have the ability to scrap the Executives and vest the duties of the Executives in the Commission. I follow the point about the Railway Executive and the Road Haulage Executive, to which we are opposed, but there it is.
I should be unhappy if the Hotels Executive did not continue in existence. I will not argue who should run the railway buffet and restaurant cars, but the management of the hotels is worthy of a separate Executive, and I do not think it would be wise to give back to the railwaymen the running of the hotels. The hotels should be a separate concern associated with the Commission. Similarly,

the docks and harbours are worthy of a separate Executive. Nevertheless, under the provisions of the Bill, it is theoretically possibly for all these bodies to be scrapped and their duties to be vested in the Commission itself.
Taking into account all these considerations, the work which the Commission will inevitably have to do seems to be rather increased in some ways, even though its properties will diminish, and it seems to be increased in some ways compared with the present order of things plus the possibility that some of the other Executives will be abolished and part of their duties transferred to the Commission.
It appears to me that a case has not been made for the abolition of full-time members of the Commission with the exception of the chairman. We must have a balance. If all the members are full-time functional ones, they become in a way a board of chief officers. That is practised in some private enterprise industries. It is, I believe, partly, not wholly, applied by I.C.I., and partly applied by Unilever's Nevertheless, I do not like that method. I like the element of criticism and detachment represented by part-time members. I do not want a board of chief officers. It is like having a municipality which has an executive board of chief officers with no councillors to supervise the chief officers, which would be wrong.
On the other hand, one does not want to go too far the other way. If there is nobody but the full-time chairman and the full-time servants of the board, it may be that the element of full-time service on the board itself will be insufficient to watch the working of the undertaking and to supervise the executive chief officers.
I am in favour of a balance. I believe the Bill goes too far in giving the Minister power completely to abolish the full-time element with the exception of the chairman. We should prefer a co-ordinated full-time element of a chairman and four other members with others who are part-time. As I have already pointed out, we favour in principle the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Bolton, West.
Some ideas have been promulgated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), whom we are sorry not


to see in the Chamber at the moment. If area transport authorities or whatever they will be called—I had better be careful how I describe them; I nearly fell down the other night—are set up, it is conceivable that some of the part-time members of the Transport Commission could be used additionally as part-time chairmen of some of those authorities. Full-time members might be used for that purpose. All sorts of things could happen. If the Bill is to go forward in its present shape, which we do not like, there is a great deal to be said for a fair amount of elasticity, but not so much elasticity as to reduce the full-time element on the Commission to the chairman only.
I could say much more about this, for it is an interesting subject, but we have not time, for the Guillotine is to fall at 8.30 p.m. and we want to discuss an important Amendment relating to members of the Commission having experience of organised labour. Consequently, I content myself with what I have said, hoping that we shall leave time to discuss the Amendment about which hon. Friends of mine who are associated with the trade union movement are keen.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank my hon. friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) for his courtesy in cutting short his observations on his Amendment and enabling me to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) before making my comments. I must say straight away that this is the sort of matter on which the general experience of the Committee is of great value to any Government in making up its mind.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, at present there is a full-time chairman, to whom I have paid very genuine tributes for the work that he has done, and there is an obligation that there should be not fewer than four and not more than eight members, of whom no fewer than four must be full-time. Although we have criticised the 1947 Act and said that an impossible task was imposed on the Commission and, through it, its Executives. none the less I wish to repeat the gratitude which we all feel for the self-sacrificing work which the Commission has done and the efficient manner in which it has carried out its obligations.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West wanted to make the number not 10 but 14, while the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South wanted to insist that a fixed number—I think it was not less than four—of the expanded Commission of 10 must be full-time members. He referred to the danger of people who are all full-time—and I like his phrase very much—becoming a little monastic. May I say in passing that in my visits to the railways I have found many grades of people engaged on the railways who have seen that danger in the last few years. They have said—and one of them used the same word—that with the disappearance of outside directors, who brought a knowledge of what was happening in the world, among the passengers, among the people who wanted to send freight, they themselves were living a life which was a little too monastic, all talking railway business all the time and hearing insufficient of what was happening outside.

Mr. Sparks: Does this mean that the right hon. Gentleman favours a substantial increase in the part-time members of the Commission? I am sure he will bear in mind that before nationalisation the four main line railways had 74 directors, most of them part-time. Is he suggesting that that principle should be adopted here?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was not suggesting any principle, other than welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman said—that there is a danger that those who are engaged full-time in a particular job, if they have few contacts with the outside world, tend to become a little too monastic. I think there is very little danger of that happening to a Member of Parliament. We keep in contact with the outside world through an average of some 50,000 people, most of whom, in my experience, seem to write to their Member of Parliament at least once every month.
As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, we have tried to strike a happy balance here. It seemed to us that there was a case for increasing the membership of the Commission— the maximum possible membership—from eight to 10. It may be that all the executives will go. As I have been at pains to say, I believe the London Executive would remain as a separate unit even if it were not strictly an executive. I must await the statement


of the scheme before I can give any information on that matter.
Nevertheless, the number of people directly concerned with the centralised running of the various activities will inevitably be reduced as a result of the disappearance of the executives, although, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, the many other bodies which were provided for in Clause 14 will assume many of the functions now being conducted, for example, by the Railway Executive. It seemed to us that there was a case for increasing the number of the Commission from eight to 10, but I am anxious to retain a freedom to decide, and for my successor to decide—and I believe he will welcome this decision— what is the proper proportion between full-time and part-time members.
I know it would be easy outside this Committee for some hon. Members, if so minded, to say that the Government were putting the running of British Railways in the hands of people only one of whom was giving full-time attention to the job, supported by people all of whom might be part-time. But that would be a grave perversion of the truth. There will be various other authorities, composed almost entirely of railway officers, provided for in Clause 14—a great many people directly concerned in what will be the most important part of the Commission's activities, which is the organisation and running of British Railways.
Other duties now imposed on the Commission will go. They will no longer have the duty to provide an integrated system of public transport. I should be out of order if I went back to the reasons why we decided that was no longer a practical proposition. They will no longer have the obligation to run a long-distance road haulage monopoly. They will no longer have the duty to run road passenger area schemes or prepare them. They will no longer have the duty of preparing a scheme for trade harbours.
These are very considerable changes, and although we think there is a case for the Minister having a wider field to choose from in increasing the number from eight to 10, we do not think we should pre-judge the matter of the people who are to be part-time or full-time. Probably this is the strongest consideration in all our minds. The percentage of part-time and full-time members must largely

depend on the form which the organisation of the railways takes and the form of the re-organised railway scheme.
I can imagine different ways in which the scheme can be made, some of which may demand full-time concentration by members of the British Transport Commission, in which case naturally there would have to be at least one, if not more, full-time member with particular responsibility in that field. It may be that the declared intention of the Government to encourage decentralisation of the railways will produce a scheme in which that would not be necessary, in which case we should not need the same proportion of full-time members.
To sum up, we certainly do not intend that there should be only a full-time chairman, but we think it would be unwise to introduce a rigid proportion as between full-time and part-time members until we see the shape of the railway re-organisation scheme to come. Nor do we feel that there has yet been a case made out—and there will be other occasions when we can discuss this, both in another place and on the Report stage—for increasing the number of the Commission, but, as I have said, this is the sort of issue on which the wisdom of the Committee can well change Government policy, although it is my present intention to ask the Committee to reject both Amendments.

Major Legge-Bourke: Could my right hon. Friend give this assurance? He will realise that Section 5 of the Act under which these executives were set up is affected by the Bill. Has he in mind the idea of making some of the permanent members of the Commission in future people who have working knowledge of the various subjects still covered by the executives which will continue? I have particularly in mind the docks and inland waterways. Can my right hon. Friend give that assurance?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. and gallant Friend will have seen an Amendment on the Order Paper demanding, first, financial knowledge, secondly, operational knowledge, and thirdly, experience; and I shall deal with those various points, all of which I hope will be included in the Commission, as we come to them. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind that Executive


very closely associated with his own part of the world and one part of its activities, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. The future of that Executive and the way in which that vital work must be conducted must depend and await the scheme to be put forward by the Commission. But I have already said this: I give an assurance to those people who are disturbed at the possibility that there is no intention that these activities will be handed over to the de-centralised railways. They will be conducted in the form to be submitted to me by the Commission, under the Commission, although not in conjunction with the de-centralised railways.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: We do not propose to divide the Committee on this occasion, partly because we have not sufficient time to divide and partly because the Minister has given an answer which shows, I gather, that his mind is a little bit open. On the other hand, I do not feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment, so we shall consent to its being negatived without a Division. The same applies to the next two Amendments. We should like to divide on them but we cannot, as the Guillotine will fall at 8.30. We shall reserve our Division until the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed: In page 32, line 18, leave out "repealed and accordingly only," and insert "amended so that."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed: In page 32, line 19, after "chairman," insert "four other members."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, in page 32, line 22, to leave out paragraph (c).
I understand from what you said earlier, Sir Charles, that you were willing that the remaining Amendments to this Clause should be taken together with the one I am moving.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Davies: Thank you, Sir Charles. The Amendment I am moving is one of a series aimed to ensure that the British

Transport Commission remains an adequately representative body to carry out the duties which remain to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), speaking on the previous Amendments, dealt with the duties which remain, but I would add that, although it is true that certain duties of the Commission are to be taken away from them, particularly as regards road haulage, the preparation of passenger schemes and the like, those which do remain will be equally burdensome, and in some ways more onerous, because of the fact that road haulage has been taken away. The difficulties that will confront the Commission will be very great indeed.
The Commission will be faced with a very difficult task in making ends meet and in operating successfully. It is therefore almost more essential than ever that the composition of the Commission shall be correct. I would remind the Minister that there will still be assets worth more than £1,300 million which the Commission will have to administer, and that sum is not on the small side. The Commission will be answerable to the Minister. It will be accountable, and therefore the persons who serve on it must be able to accept the responsibility which that entails.
It was always the intention of the former Minister of Transport in the Labour Government that the Transport Commission should be a policy-making and planning body, and such it has largely been. It was never intended that it should be a managerial body. One is a little worried, therefore, when the Minister refers to the possibility of the Commission managing the Tailways, or implying that there is that possibility.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would not want to give that impression at all, or have it go out to the country. There is no such idea. I said that when the scheme was submitted by the Commission it might envisage the need for a member of the Commission to be directly concerned, on the lines of the letter from the Chairman which I read to the Committee.

Mr. Davies: On another occasion we may have an opportunity of discussing that point in mare detail. I consider that it is necessary to have some form of management intervening between the planning body, which is the Commission,


and the actual transport authorities in the regions, whatever they shall be. The purpose of the Amendment which I am moving is to remove paragraph (c), which defines persons who, the Bill suggests, should be drawn upon to serve upon the Commission. By omitting the paragraph, the position would revert to that which was provided for in the 1947 Act. There it was stated that the Commission should be appointed by the Minister
from among persons appearing to him to be persons who have had wide experience and shown capacity in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration, or in the organisation of workers.
The important thing is that, as we understand the Bill, the field from which the Commission is to be drawn is to be narrowed somewhat, and we disapprove of that. In the first place, the membership is to include
persons who between them have had experience in the management of railways and road transport.
As has been pointed out, the inland waterways are omitted as are docks, harbours and canals. There are Amendments to bring them in. Further, the field is limited by the reference to
persons who, otherwise than by virtue of such experience as is mentioned in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of this paragraph, may between them be expected to be conversant with the requirements, as respects transport, of agriculture, commerce and industry.
That, too, is somewhat limited, more limited than it was in the 1947 Act, and we propose to broaden it. If paragraph (c) is omitted, it will bring back into the Bill the requirement that persons on the Commission shall be drawn from a wider field.
We think it is necessary also that there should be some continuity of membership and that it would be unfortunate if the newly-appointed Commission did not consist partly of those who have already had experience of the existing Commission. It is very probable, I quite appreciate, that that would be the case, but it might be as well to include that point in the Bill.
We therefore propose an Amendment to insert the words:
persons who have had experience of the duties and business of the Commission.
We want to ensure continuity, despite the disposal of certain of the assets of the Commission, because a very large amount of similar duties remain.
Perhaps the most important of the Amendments which we want to bring to the attention of the Minister is that which changes "a person" to "persons," in respect of those who have had experience in the organisation of workers. We think it is most unfortunate that the Minister should have decided to limit the representation of those who have had experience in the organisation of workers to one individual. In none of the nationalisation Bills was there any such limitation. The requirement was that there should be included representatives of those with such experience, and it was never made clear whether the number should be one, two or more. This point was left to the discretion of the Minister.
In all the nationalised boards which have been set up there has been created a team of responsible individuals drawn from fields of activity relevant to the particular board, and in each one of them there have been one or more representatives of the works. It has never been our contention that the boards should be representative bodies, inasmuch as the people represented certain sections of the community and were responsible to them, but we did consider that there should be included on the boards someone who has had experience of the trade union movement, and such has been the case.
After the Bill goes through, if it goes through in its present form, the Road Haulage Executive and the Railway Executive will disappear, on both of which there are representatives of the trade union movement. The Commission will clearly have fewer workers' representatives serving on it after the Bill goes through, as well as on its Executives, than is the case at the present time. It seems to us that if the experience which the trade union movement is able to bring to the operation of this great transport industry is not to be drawn upon to the same extent in future, then the Commission will suffer, and the relationship with the workers might not be as happy as it has been up to the present.
I therefore suggest that the least the Minister can do is to accept the Amendment which requires that instead of "a person" there shall be "persons" who have experience in the organisation of workers, and that if he is unable to accept the Amendment in this particular form


he should bring sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (2, c) together, so that they should read somewhat to this effect:
persons who between them have had experience in the management and organisation of workers in railways and road transport.
In that way he would not limit himself to having only one representative of the workers or of the trade union movement on the Commission. The experience up to the present of having a representative board for the nationalised industries has been successful. I am sure the Minister will agree that those who have been drawn from the trade union movement, much to its loss, have contributed their full share to the success of these nationalised undertakings.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: I ask the Minister not to go back on this, but to show his appreciation of the service they have given by providing in this Bill that their representation shall not be limited in any way.

Brigadier Ralph Rayner: I appreciate the desire of my right hon. Friend to keep the Commission as small as possible, but inland water transport has received little mention so far. Therefore, Sir Charles, may I refer to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friends and myself in line 27 of this Clause, at end, insert:
and inland water."?
The interest which some of us took in inland waterways when we numbered Sir Alan Herbert amongst our colleagues has persisted, and therefore we have put down that Amendment which aims at getting the Minister to include in this Commission someone with a specialist knowledge of our canals.
We all know that the French, Dutch and most other Europeans have not only preserved but improved their canals over the last 50 years, whereas in this country we have let them go. Now that we have ceased to be the rich island we used to be, we feel that we should turn to this cheapest form of heavy transport, so that in itself is a good reason for having on the Commission someone with special knowledge of canals.
It is worth while to try to divert from our ever more congested roads some of

the heavy traffic. It is worth while to try to save some square miles of that valuable food-producing land which is earmarked for future road schemes. It is worth while to try to save some of the millions of tons of steel which go to railway maintenance, and it is worth while to try to conserve our water transport as only a really efficient canal system can conserve it.
On this occasion I cannot argue the possibility of doing any of those things or suggest where the money could be found, but they all constitute good reasons why the Minister might consider having an expert on the Commission. We are not asking much, because this subsection is merely permissive. Although the Minister may tell us tonight that he cannot meet us on this Amendment, I hope he will give more thought to it between now and the Report stage.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: We all agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) has said about our canals and the desirabilty of having on the Commission an expert point of view. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will forgive me when I say that those canals were in the control of private enterprise for a long time and were badly neglected. A new set-up was established under the British Transport Commission which had a great job to do in preparing schemes, so it is important that we should have one of those representatives on the Commission.
I am also concerned that we should have on it a further representative of the trade unions. It may mean that the Minister will have to increase the size of the Commission, but I do not see why he should not do that. Even after this Bill becomes an Act, the Commission will be responsible for £1,300,000 of property. Does the noble Lord wish to query that figure? I see he has only just come in. He would not know that the Minister has refused to accept an Amendment to increase the Commission to 14.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If the hon. Member will look at lines 14 and 15 on page 32, he will find that the membership of the Commission is being increased under the Bill.

Mr. Mellish: With great respect, there are Amendments which would extend the


Commission. The Minister was not prepared to do that, and we are pressing him to do so. This Clause lays down the actual number. It says:
a person who has had experience in the organisation of workers.
Just one person. We are asking for that to be extended. When the R.H.E. and the Railway Executive go, we shall lose the services of men who have done a remarkable job, such as Mr. Harold Clay of the Road Haulage Executive and Mr. Allen of the Railway Executive. They have the trust and support of the workers in the industry, they have lived their lives amongst them, and they are practical men. The Commission need men of this calibre, but if the Minister allows this Clause to go through as it is, if he wants to put them on it he cannot do so.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will show his sincerity on this occasion. The other day we had a discussion about the Disposal Board. Wonderful tributes were paid to the great work of the trade union movement and it was said how right it was that the trade unions should be represented on that board. We pointed out that it would be improper for them to be concerned with smashing up an industry which they had done so much to build. Now we can find out whether the Minister is genuine in what he said. If he is, all he has to do is to add an "s" at the end of the word "person."

Major Legge-Bourke: I support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) and I ask the Minister to bear in mind that, as far as inland waterways are concerned, they were, still could be, and in some cases are vital links in our communications and transport system, and that the powers which the Commission have over inland waterways are considerable.
Some of my hon. Friends and myself have put down a new Clause entitled "Repeals relating to inland waterways" which I understand will not be selected. That Clause is designed to restrict those powers considerably and if it is not possible to do that, the case for increasing the influence which those who know something about inland waterways can have on the Commission is even greater than before. I hope the Minister will go as far as he can to meet this plea.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Since this debate has to come to an end at 8.30, perhaps I had better make my observations now. It has been interesting, even though it has produced some curious observations; curious in the context of what happened in 1947 and of the failure of some hon. Gentlemen opposite to make any protest at the time. In a moment I will come on to the highly important question of trade union representation.
As hon. Gentlemen who look at the Bill will realise, the Third Schedule only repeals certain parts of the Act. In the case of Part I of the 1947 Act, subsection (2) of the Clause expressly limits the extent of the repeal to the obligation that four members other than the chairman must render whole-time service. This, therefore, leaves the field from which the Minister can choose suitable people for the Commission as it was in the 1947 Act, strengthened by the wider field that is now available as well.
I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite—for example, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies)—who spoke about representatives of or people qualified to speak for inland waterways and docks and harbours being omitted from the Commission, realise what happens now. The Commission as constituted contains probably no one who could be regarded as an expert in that field. Sir William Wood, former chairman of the L.M.S. Railway, of course had a good deal to do with inland waterways, but there is no suggestion that the Commission contains any leading expert on inland waterways.
I recognise the importance of inland waterways and should like to make it plain to both of my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) and the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that this is a genuine interest. I am sorry if this highly important part of our transport system, with its roots so deep in our history, should have received very little attention in this debate, but that does not augur any lack of interest in their future and I shall certainly look at the wording in the light of the observations that my hon. and gallant Friends have made.
We are also anxious that there should be continuity. I agree with the view of the hon. Member for Enfield, East that there certainly ought to be on the Commission somebody who is on the existing


Commission. There is, however, a danger in making anything obligatory, and I hope that my assurance that I cannot conceive such a break with continuity as no invitation being extended to an existing member of the Commission to serve in the future, will remove the doubt in the hon. Gentleman's mind.
Now, I come to the question of trade union representation, to which both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) directed some observations. I am very anxious—the Bill shows it—that there should, and must, be a trade unionist on the Commission. But after all, hon. Members opposite in their own legislation, in Section 1 (2), did not provide that there must be a trade unionist. I am no lawyer, but I am advised that the wording
persons who have had wide experience … in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration, or in the organisation of workers.…
would have left it perfectly free for a Minister, if so minded, not to have included a trade unionist. I have searched with great care, and with the aid of some of my colleagues who are less busy than I, the whole of the Committee stage when the Bill of 1947 was before Parliament. No Labour Member then complained that this was not made obligatory on the Minister.

Mr. Ernest Davies: That is a specious argument. When the Bill was going through the House, we knew that the Labour Government would remain in office long enough for us to appoint the Commission. Every member of the trade union movement knew perfectly well that there would be representatives of the workers on it. We do not share the same view regarding the present Government.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. I must say the positive part of what I have to say before 8.30. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very anxious, not only to have the right Commission now, but that the next Conservative Government and the one after that can re-appoint from the then Commission those most suitable to carry on this good work.
I was only at pains to point that there was no obligation put upon the Minister in the late Administration that a trade

unionist should be included. I have discussed this with a number of hon. Members and also with representatives of the trade unions. We are very anxious to meet any reasonable point that may be advanced. The Commission could be as small as four and, under the proposal, cannot be more than 10. I have to try to balance properly the interests of providers and users of transport. I do not want to tie my hands so as to have an absolute obligation that if the Commission is smaller than anticipated—and it might be; we must await the scheme of railway de-centralisation—there must be more than one trade union representative.
I rather like the suggestion of the hon. Member for Enfield, East that we might amalgamate paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (2, c) which would then read:
persons who between them have had experience in the management and the organisation of workers in railways and road transport.
This would psychologically have the effect of not making representatives of workers the only people who are put in the singular. There is certainly no intention that the Minister should be prevented from appointing more than one. I am prepared to give very favourable consideration to that proposal, and I hope before the Report stage to be able to formulate a Clause which will commend itself both to this side of the Committee and to the viewpoint that the hon. Gentleman has advanced.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I should like the Minister to understand fully that this is the less preferable of the two. We would far rather "person" became plural, and we would only reluctantly accept the Minister's suggestion.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that, but it might be one of those compromises which turns out to be the wisest solution of all three.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the Minister consider one point? As the Clause at present reads, it seems to have the effect that the Minister does not want. I think it ties him to appointing only one person with trade union experience. It is not a matter that we can argue now, but it was a remarkable piece of drafting to put "person" in that one case and not in the others. The Minister should consider whether it does not have a limiting effect on whether he can appoint


as many as he likes or as few as he likes if he inserts "person." I did not make the Guillotine.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Nor did I—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did."] We proceeded to do what the Opposition did in the Transport Bill in 1947. I am not, like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), a lawyer but if we put in "persons" I should think that would put an absolute obligation on the Minister to appoint more than one, but this is where the hon. and learned Member would undoubtedly earn a higher fee than I would, and I am not proposing to argue about that.
I have, I hope, given an indication of our desire not to be compelled to do it, but not to be prevented from doing it, and I will sympathetically consider the wording which has been proposed. We have heard so much in various points made on Amendments to this and to other Clauses of the suggestion that the Government are not interested in those who actually work in an industry having a chance to play a part in the management of that industry. There is nothing in the wording here which would prevent that.
I must say to hon. Members who frequently hurl these charges at the Conservative Party that I urge them to look up the resolutions of the 1951 Annual Conference of the Labour Party. This is strictly relevant to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) in page 32, line 27, which relates to people experienced in operation. I would commend to hon. Members opposite the resolutions of the conference of the Labour Party. If they turn to pages 48 and 49, they will find the agenda studded with protests from members of their own party all over the country at the failure to employ men experienced in the working of the nationalised industry in the running of the industry.

We say that the good name of our own party and of Her Majesty's Government is at stake. It should be clearly known that this Government attaches as much importance and probably more to the direct participation of working men in the management of the industry as did their predecessors.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman has chosen to use the last few moments before the Guillotine falls—so that we cannot reply—to put over a cheap party point. He knows very well that the resolutions put on the order paper of the conference were not accepted by the conference. He ought to have found a better use of the closing moments of a debate of this kind than to put forward a cheap party point of that sort. It has been typical of his action when he thinks he can score a point. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the workers in the road haulage industry and on the railways have no particular confidence in him when they see—
It being half-past Eight o'Clock, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 25, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Ernest Davies: On a point of order. We had stated that we wished to negative all these Amendments, as we did the previous one.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Eight o'Clock.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 245 Noes, 235.

Division No. 58.]
AYES
[8.32 p.m


Aitken, W. T.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Brooman-White, R. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Birch, Nigel
Browne, Jack (Govan)


Banks, Col. C.
Bishop, F. P.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T.


Barber, Anthony
Black, C. W
Bullard, D. G.


Barlow, Sir John
Bossom, A. C.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Boyle, Sir Edward
Burden, F. F. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Braine, B. R.
Campbell, Sir David




Carr, Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W)
Powell, J. Enoch


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Profumo, J. D.


Cole, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Colegate, W. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Redmayne, M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, D.
Renton, D. L. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, H. W.
Robertson, Sir David


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robson-Brown, W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambton, Viscount
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crouch, R. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Russell, R. S.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davidson, Viscountess
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Deedes, W. F.
Linstad, H. N.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Scott, R. Donald


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Longden, Gilbert
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Low, A. R. W.
Shepherd, William


Donner, P. W.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Drayson, G. B.
Mackibbin, A. J.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Draws, C.
Mckie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Snadden, W. McN.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Soames, Capt. C.


Duthie, W. S.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Speir, R. M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Fell, A.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Finlay, Graeme
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stevens, G. P.


Fisher, Nigel
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Markham, Major S. F.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Storey, S.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Marples, A. E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D (Pollok)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Summers, G. S.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maude, Angus
Sutcliffe, H.


Godber, J. B.
Maudling, R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Gough, C. F. H.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gower, H. R.
Mellor, Sir John
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Molson, A. H. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Tilney, John


Grimston, Hon. John (St Albans)
Morrison, John (Sallsbury)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Turton, R. H.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholls, Harmar
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Vane, W. M. F.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Vosper, D. F.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Nugent, G. R. H.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Heath, Edward
Nutting, Anthony
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Oakshott, H. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Odey, G. W.
Watkinson, H. A.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hollis, M. C.
Osborne, C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Partridge, E.
Wood, Hon. R.


Horobin, I. M.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
York, C.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Perkins, W. R. D.



Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Wills.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Blenkinsop, A.


Adams, Richard
Bartley, P.
Blyton, W. R.


Albu, A. H.
Bence, C. R.
Boardman, H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Benn, Wedgwood
Bowden, H. W.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Benson, G.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Beswick, F.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Awbery, S. S.
Bing, G. H. C.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Baoon, Miss Alice
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)







Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Proctor, W. T.


Burke, W. A.
Janner, B.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reeves, J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Carmichael, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Champion, A. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.


Chapman, W. D.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Clunie, J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Coldrick, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Collick, W.
Keenan, W.
Ross, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, C.
Royle, C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kinley, J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Darling George (Hillsborough)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lewis, Arthur
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacColl, J. E.
Snow, J. W.


Deer G.
McInnes, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Steele, T.


Evans, Stanley(Wednesbry)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Field, W. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Swingler, S. T.


Fienburgh, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Sylvester, G. O.


Finch, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Tayler, Bernard (Mansfield)


Folliok, M.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Foot, M. M.
Messer, F.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Forman, J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Monslow, W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gibson, C. W.
Moody, A. s.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Glanville, James
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Gooch, E. G.
Morley, R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thornton, E.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R
Mort, D. L.
Tomney, F.


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, F. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Murray, J. D.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Nally, W.
Wallace, H. W.


Grimond, J.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.
West, D. G.


Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hannan, W.
Orbach, M.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hargreaves, A.
Oswald, T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Padley, W. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hastings, S.
Paget, R. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wigg, George


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Pannell, Charles
Willey, F. T.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Holman, P.
Parton, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Holt, A. F.
Pearson, A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Houghton, Douglas
Peart, T. F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Yates, V. F.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Popplewell, E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G.



Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifte)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Arthur Allen.


Irvine, A J. (Edge Hill)




Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25.—(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS AS TO COMMISSION.)

Clause 28.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES FOR SCOTLAND AND WALES.)

Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 36, line 41, after "of," to insert:
The Transport Users Consultative Committees set up under subsection (3) of section six of the Transport Act, 1947, and.

The Deputy-Chairman: I suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee to consider at the same time the Amendments in page 37, lines 1 and 9.

Sir F. Soskice: These Amendments cover two points, but they are fairly closely inter-related. The object of the first two is to equate the area Consultative Committees with the Scottish and Welsh Committees, with which the Clause deals. The Clause, as it reads at present without the Amendment, provides that the minutes and recommendations of the Scottish and Welsh Committees are to go to the Minister as well as to the Commission and the Central Transport Consultative Committee. Under Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1947, the recommendations and minutes of the area and Scottish and Welsh Consultative Committees, go, in the first place, to the Central Consultative Committee, and only from that Committee do they go to the Minister.
This Clause provides that the recommendations and minutes of the Scottish and Welsh Committees should go to the Minister, the Commission and the Central Committee. We on this side cannot follow the reasoning of the Minister which prompted him to make a differentiation between the area committees appointed under the 1947 Act and the Scottish and Welsh Committees. After all, each has most important problems to consider. It is common ground that the area and other committees have all functioned extremely effectively during the time since they were set up.
8.45 p.m.
A number of matters have been brought to the notice of the Minister, and the recommendations that they have made have conduced greatly to the advantage of the users of the transport system. We seek information from the Minister whether there is any reason in his mind for making what seems to us to be an illogical and—I go further—an unreasonable distinction between the area committees and the Scottish and Welsh Committees.
After all, wherever we go in the length and breadth of the land, there are important problems which, collectively, the users of the road transport system would desire to voice, and the purpose of these committees has been, as it were, to collect

the various representations made by and on behalf of the users into something coherent and sensible, and to put up the result of the joint representations of all users, in the last resort, to the Minister, so that he can give directions to give effect to them. I think everybody on both sides of the Committee would at once concede that the result of that process has been very materially to forward the interests of users of road transport and to improve generally the services provided.
That being the state of affairs, and, indeed, a state of affairs which everybody accepts—the Minister himself has frequently paid tribute to the general working of various organs of the Commission, and I am sure that he would include these committees—it was rather surprising to us to find these two special committees singled out for what seems to be a kind of preferential treatment.
Therefore, the first two Amendments have the object of bringing to the notice of the Government the fact that there is in their Bill what seems to be an unjustifiable distinction between the two sets of committees, and to bring about the result that they are all placed upon the same basis. The result would be that their recommendations would all find their way quite easily to the Minister, who would be enabled to make any directions as he thought fit if the recommendations were well founded. That is the first object. There may be a perfectly good answer, and, if so, no doubt the Minister would give it, but that answer ought, it seems to us, to justify the distinction.
The second object which we have in putting forward these Amendments is this. The road transport system having, as it were, been hived off the totality of the nation's transport system at which the 1947 Act aimed, it seemed to us that, if the Minister's directions are to be really effective for the purpose of protecting the private user of road transport services, it was logical, and indeed inevitable, that any directions which he gave as a result of recommendations which reached him from the users, through the medium of these committees, should be directions which would have to be obeyed, not only by the Commission, but by the private road hauliers who would now resume control of private road haulage


Therefore, the third Amendment is designed to bring that about. It provides that, if the Minister has had these recommendations made to him by a committee, he may give directions, not only to the Commission, but also to the road haulage users. Hon. Members opposite may say that it is not so necessary in the private sector of road transport, because the individual user can cease to have further business relations with a private road haulier if he does not find him satisfactory, but that, I would submit to the Committee, is not an answer at all, for this reason.
The whole object of this system of Consultative Committees which act on behalf of users of road transport is to study, canalise and gather together in a kind of clearing house all the various representations which may properly be made on behalf of road transport users. A variety of different points may present themselves in a variety of different circumstances, and the object of these committees is that they should, all the time, by gathering together and digesting, get something which is single, coherent and cohesive, and that the total result in that form should be presented to the Minister for his consideration. That being so, we feel that, if this system of Consultative Committees is to continue and do the useful work which it has done hitherto, it really must be extended to bring into its scope the private road hauliers. Therefore, the second object we have in mind in these Amendments is to bring this about.
If I may shortly summarise our two purposes they are, firstly, to put the area Consultative Committees upon the same footing as the Scottish and Welsh Consultative Committees so that the same treatment is given to the recommendations of each of them, and so that they can all get to the Minister without having, as it were, to be sieved through the Central Consultative Committee.
The second object is to empower the Minister—in order to preserve the effect of the system that operates at present—to give directions, not only to the Commission, but also to the road hauliers. I would simply supplement what I have said by saying in addition that not only is that second purpose necessary, but that I would pray in aid what has been said on almost every Clause of this Bill, that

if it is desired to preserve something like a fair balance between the Commission and the private road haulier, then it must be said that the private road haulier shall comply just as much as the Commission with the Minister's directions.
It is putting the Commission at a wholly unjustifiable disadvantage vis-à-vis the private sector of the industry if the Minister is only to be allowed to say to the Commission that it is to do or not to do some particular thing, but is to be virtually powerless to prevent private road hauliers doing or not doing precisely the same thing. Therefore, on general considerations of justice and in order to balance this very unbalanced Bill somewhat better, I also pray in aid the general argument of fairness as between the private and public sectors in commending the second purpose we have in mind.
Those are our objects, and for those reasons I commend these Amendments to the Committee. I know that right hon. and hon. Members opposite realise from their recent experience of being in Opposition how difficult it is to draft these things in the perfect form in which ultimately they have to appear in the Bill. Therefore, if there are defects in the Amendments—as I am sure there are—I hope that the Minister, even if he cannot accept them in their present form tonight, will say that he will take them away in order to put them in proper form and to embody their objects in the Bill.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) has made a very interesting speech, and a slightly surprising one. I do not know whether he appreciates that the suggestion which he puts forward will have the effect of increasing the Minister's power of giving directions to the Commission. If he does not appreciate that fact, then, of course, his argument has a serious gap in it. But, if he purposely intends that, then I say that the intention is surprising, because earlier in the Committee stage we heard at least one of his hon. Friends putting forward the view that the Commission should remain, as the Socialist Party thought they had got it, fairly independent of Ministerial control.
Speaking purely for myself and not necessarily for any of my right hon. or hon. Friends, I personally would not mind seeing the Commission brought


closer to Parliament through greater Ministerial responsibility. I make no secret of that. But, on the other hand, there is less need for Parliamentary responsibility if we are introducing greater freedom of competition and greater freedom of choice.
That brings me to the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made about trying to make sure, as he put it. that the consumer was fairly treated by private enterprise. It will be for the consumer and the licensing authorities, acting in a sort of statutory partnership, to decide that for themselves. Quite candidly, I do not think that the Consultative Committees are likely to have an important duty in that respect, nor indeed will the Minister.
If this Clause concerns Consultative Committees, then perhaps without putting myself out of order I might say a word about them. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that they have done useful work. I do not think that all of the work has been useful. I was rather shocked when there was reference in this debate to London fares to find that these committees regarded themselves virtually as arbiters of whether or not the Commission were performing their statutory duties. I do not think that that is the function of these committees at all. Their function is to represent the interests, feelings and desires of the consumers and to leave it for the Commission and the Minister, if he comes into it at all, to decide to what extent those desires can be met.
I see that in Clause 28 (1) Monmouthshire is to be brought in with Wales and treated specially in the matter of the Minister's power to give directions. It is not a frivolous point that I am making when I say, in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, that I hope that there are many hon. Members who feel, as I do, that this is perhaps a nice recognition of the magnificent work which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did in the last two Parliaments in transport matters.

Mr. Mellish: I want to support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) and to say first of all, in answer to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton),

that even if the Consultative Committees have not come up to the high standard for which we had hoped, they have done a useful job of work in some instances and that that surely has justified their coming into being. It was because of the Labour Government's 1947 Act that we were anxious that the consumers should express their point of view. Had the Labour Party continued in power, one of the matters to which we would have given attention in the whole realm of nationalisation would have been this question of the voice of the consumer being heard much more than in the past.
It has to be remembered that the 1947 Act was in an experimental stage when we left office. It has been said often, even by the present Home Secretary, that it will take 10 years for the Act to develop. We were in an experimental stage with these Consultative Committees when the Tory Party came into power, which was a great tragedy for the country as a whole. Although this is the British Transport Commission, although our transport system is now a British and national undertaking, it does not appeal to the Tories at all, and they intend to give part of it back to private speculators.
The Amendment seeks to ensure that these Consultative Committees have some power to make representations against the private trader and that the Minister has power to deal with the private trader. What is wrong with that? I should have thought that that was a fair point. If a consumer has a grievanve against a private trader he should be allowed to express it, and there should be some means by which the Minister should be able to deal with the problem.
As has been quite rightly pointed out. it is going to be argued that we are now going to get this wonderful free competition and that if somebody does not like Messrs. Brown and Co. they can go to Messrs. Jones and Co. But it is not as simple as that. In some areas there will be only one person doing the job and it may be that a particular consumer will object to the way he is carrying the goods or to the rates he is charging.
I should not think there could be any objection to these Amendments, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might accept them.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the course of this Committee stage we have heard many complaints against my right hon. Friend and against this Bill. The Minister is seeking to place himself in a dictatorial position in regard to the transport industry, but there is no provision in this Bill which, under the wildest distortion, confers upon my right hon. Friend a tithe of the powers which this Amendment would give him if it were accepted.
Let me draw the attention of the Committee to the terms of these Amendments. They need look only at the last part of the third of the Amendments which we are now considering, which reads:
…the Minister may give such directions with respect to any recommendations referred to in this subsection to carriers of goods or passenger traffic by road for hire or reward with respect to the matters dealt with by any such recommendations as he thinks fit and all such carriers affected by any such direction shall give effect thereto.

Mr. Mellish: On behalf of the consumer.

Mr. Powell: The Minister is placed in the position, if he receives a recommendation, of giving any directions that he thinks fit. He gives them not merely in accordance with the recommendations—although that would be bad enough—but as he thinks fit in relation to the matters referred to, and the persons to whom those directions come—the private citizens, the subjects of the Queen, must carry out that fiat. They have no appeal; they can demand no inquiry and they have no opportunity to make representations.
Never was a proposal put forward for giving a Minister such absolute discretion over the business and proceedings of private citizens. I am astonished that a subsection drawn in these terms should be put forward by the former Attorney-General. The charges of dictatorship which have been thrown across the Floor of the House were not serious at all, because the only conception of regulation which the Socialist Party have is precisely that of dictatorship.
I venture to say that this Amendment is the quintessence of Socialism. It connects up with the denigration of the road hauliers to which we have had to listen from the other side of the Committee only

too often in the course of these debates. We were told last night that a number of these small hauliers have no standards of public honesty. I have drawn attention before to the fact that whenever the Socialists find that things are not running as they expected they accuse this or that section of the community of having inadequate standards of public morality. It never occurs to them that when a section of the community act in a way which does not conform with their plans and theories it is probable that something is wrong with those plans and theories.
The Opposition have been arguing on this matter of road transport any entirely contradictory cases, and the same contradiction is inherent in this Amendment. Half the Opposition have been telling us that the result of this Bill will be to throw the road transport industry back—that is always the word they use—into conditions of cut-throat competition where one haulier will be running against another to cut a few shillings off the margin.
That is one picture. But other hon. Members opposite say, "How are we to protect the consumer in future against the profiteering instincts of private enterprise? How can we possibly protect him against having the maximum possible fares and freights extorted from him by the private road hauliers?" The two arguments are entirely inconsistent, and they are both untrue.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), with whom, as he says, I have had many debates, asked me last night to deal with his allegation that the Bill is designed to take us back to pre-1933 conditions. I see that HANSARD has recorded me as saying in words which I recollect using in another place not long ago, "I will." The fact is that we are not going back to pre-1933 conditions precisely because the machinery of the 1933 Act is remaining intact and in force. None of the protection for the road haulage industry, none of that rationalisation and internal organisation which was conferred by the 1933 Act is in any way abrogated here. On the other hand, the mere fact that the 25-mile limit is raised by Clause 7, and that in future road haulage will be a competitive industry open to all who can convince the licensing authority that they can provide a service which is needed at a price is indeed the


best possible of all protections for the user.
In this Bill we are introducing competition but not cut-throat competition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) had a most amusing little time last night in pursuing a very simple fallacy. He said that this Bill was designed to promote competition. Quite right. He then turned competition into cut-throat competition and pretended to be astonished when he came to a Clause in the Bill which was clearly intended to regulate competition. This Bill provides for a competitive road haulage industry in which competition is regulated. The two arms of the dilemma which hon. Members opposite have endeavoured—

Mr. Mitchison: Horns.

Mr. Powell: If hon. Members opposite want me to provide them with horns—

Mr. Steele: We have been hearing about cut throats and horns, but quite frankly I cannot see any reference to either of these things in this Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps it may be connected with the Consultative Committees.

Mr. Powell: I am sure you will have observed, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that this Amendment not only makes provision for what the Consultative Committees may do, but for what a Minister may do upon the receipt of their recommendations. It was to this latter part of the Amendment that I was directing my attention.
We see when we come to consider these Amendments the importance for the consumer of the amendments which Clause 8 has made to the licensing procedure. The very fact that the licensing authority is now enabled to take into account the rates which are quoted by existing road hauliers for performing a service will enable the licensing authority and the licensing machinery to be more susceptible than ever before to the public need.

Mr. Mellish: What does the hon. Member think ought to happen if a Consultative Committee makes a recommendation, and what does he think the Minister will do with it?

Mr. Powell: I was about to remind the Committee of the reason why the

Consultative Committees were invented at all. Consultative Committees were invented in an endeavour to protect the public against being exploited by a State monopoly. There has recently been a judgment in the courts on a matter in which the British Transport Commission were usurping and misusing their monopoly position, and I should like to remind the Committee of the terms in which "The Times" yesterday commented upon that judgment, because it is germane to the point just made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).
"The Times" said:
Monopoly claims are the more dangerous when made by a corporate body in which vast monopolies are already vested.… His …
that is, the judge's,
… interpretation of the law …gives the public some confidence that here at least …
very cautious words—
… public ownership may not go hand in hand with reduced efficiency; there will be the pressure of private competition to secure that public enterprise will, in this sphere, give its best services to trade.
It is because the consumer requires protection against a State monopoly that these Consultative Committees were invented.

Mr. Lindgren: Why did the Tory Party provide legislation for Weights and Measures and Food and Drugs inspectors, and so on? They were not to deal with State monopolies?

Mr. Powell: They are part of the general law. The hon. Gentleman might as well ask why any Act of Parliament lays obligations and limitations on the public.
In moving their Amendment, hon. Members opposite are unable to realise the difference between the world of State monopoly in which they would like to live and the world of free competition in which my hon. Friends and I wish to see the affairs of the country conducted. They remind me—perhaps within the shadow of the Guillotine the reminiscence is not entirely inappropriate—of the occurrences on the day that the Bastille was taken in the French Revolution. In those days the population of Paris were rejoicing in their new-found freedom, but there were a few exceptions to the general rulé. They were the people who had been imprisoned in the Bastille. They


had only one request to make of their liberators, that they should take them back into the cells from which they had been liberated where they could enjoy the security of confinement.
It is in that frame of mind that hon. Members opposite, unable to realise the benefits which the Bill conveys to the consumers, are asking to be taken back into the Socialist prison house. The public of this country will not follow them.

Mr. Mitchison: I am sure that all my hon. Friends have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). We appreciate his difficulties and we hope he will succeed in working his way back soon and meeting the other members of the Conservative Research Office in some appropriate centre. I have this much in common with him. He was at one time a professor of dead languages, and I, too, was brought up on a diet of ancient philosophy and ancient history. The hon. Gentleman's philosophy would, I feel, be a little less ancient if he would only pay some attention to the history of this industry.
I do not propose to follow him in detail right out of the scope of the Amendment, but let us just see with some accuracy—for that was a habit of the Greeks, he will remember—what it is we are supposed to be talking about. We are supposed to be talking about the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) carefully explained, in a speech which may have escaped the attention of the hon. Member—perhaps he was preparing his own—there are really two points here.
9.15 p.m.
The first point is not a very difficult one. The Tory Party, we understand—and we try to learn about the principles of the Tory Party—stands for decentralisation; and I suppose it extends that to the Consultative Committees of the transport industry, although that takes a very curious form here. The Central Transport Users Consultative Committee, as has already been explained, always had direct access to the Minister. That is extended, especially, to two other committees—one for Scotland and one for Wales; but it appears to be denied

to the other Transport Users Consultative Committee, and I find that very difficult to follow.
There is a strong case for home rule for Scotland. Indeed, I had the chance of drawing rather a lucky place in the Private Members' Bill Ballot, and I thought of introducing a Bill to repeal the Act of Union. That would make about the maximum legislative mess which a Private Member's Bill could possibly make. But while I appreciate the force of the demand for home rule for Scotland, and I most certainly realise that the Scottish Members and Scotland as a whole have their own peculiar problems and ought to have a very large measure of separate Government—I agree entirely with Scottish Members on that point— I cannot see that there is a particularly strong case about transport.
After all, one gets into a train at Euston and goes straight to Glasgow. It is the same train; whether under private or public enterprise, it has always belonged to the same owners, at any rate since 1921. I should have thought that the transport system as a whole scarcely provided for a separate transport system for Scotland, and much less for Wales. After all, there is only one small railway which operates entirely in Wales.
What we are considering here is the position of these Transport Users Consultative Committees in other parts of England. If we do that, let us remember that these bodies have always had one exceedingly important and simple function: they have been the machinery through which the small man, the local man, the small village, the moderately small collection of people in a country town could make their views felt.
I am not so much concerned with the degree to which that power has been exercised. All these Consultative Committees, including those under other Acts, are in a period of growth. But I am quite sure that the reasons for which they were set up were good and sufficient: and they were set up, not because it was a national monopoly, but simply because under previous arrangements there was no vehicle for getting at the large transport owners, whether railway companies or anybody else.
I recall having tried to get some change out of railway companies on small matters before the companies were nationalised.


and I can assure right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—nor will they disagree—that the process was exceedingly tedious and in most instances most unsatisfactory. It was to try to meet that sort of situation that these committees were introduced. They were intended as general committees and were entitled to make representations, either to the Central Transport Users Committee or, ultimately, further on. They were entitled to make representations about transport as a whole; that is to say, representations both about rail and road.
Now that the Commission has virtually been reduced to a railway authority, the effect will be that the right that used to exist will be taken away. That is a matter of considerable actual importance, and of much greater potential importance, to ordinary people and small communities. My right hon. and learned Friend, in his speech on the second point, used the expression "road hauliers" in a sense that is right, but is not quite correct in the usual sense of the word. The Amendment refers to the carriage of passengers as well as to the carriage of goods by road.
Let me make a plea to the Minister and to the Committee as a whole for an immediate recourse to the Minister, and a real right, in respect of the passenger transport businesses in rural areas. After all, a large number of hon. Members on the other side represent areas of this kind themselves. It was suggested just now that this would be met in practice by a combination of the individual road haulier or road carrier—with some element of competition, whatever it may be—and of the licensing authorities.
I hope the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) will allow me to say that my own constituency is not very far from his, and I think I know what happens in that area. It is that one largish company, whether under public or private ownership, does the bulk of the work, and it is very rare for the licensing authorities to be able to make much out of the virtues of competition, whatever they may be, when it is a question of carrying passengers or goods in these rural areas.

Mr. Renton: I was referring really to the licensing authority for goods vehicles. That is the side of transport to which the

right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I did not entirely agree with what he said about the licensing authority for passenger vehicles, because the local authorities and other local people go before them and make representations.

Mr. Mitchison: In practice that is not much of a safeguard and it has not worked well. These areas, which are very important from an agricultural point of view and often, as in Northampton, from an industrial point of view, depend on these road carriers. The people who depend upon them are the inhabitants of small communities, manufacturers in a comparatively small way whether of boots and shoes or anything else, and people of that sort.
It is to those people that this right of organised representation that will come to the Minister finally is invaluable. Let hon. Members not say that the right has not been sufficiently exercised. I am inclined to agree with them about all of these Consultative Committees, but it has been exercised a bit and the exercise is certainly growing. It is our business as a Committee to encourage the growth of it.
I cannot think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow the philosophical considerations on a very high level of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, or of anybody of that sort, to interfere unduly with the protection of ordinary people in small communities, small manufacturers and so on, who need this kind of thing in order to make their voices heard. It will be a step towards making democracy in this country more effective if we get that kind of small community in touch with the central Government and if we can let it see what are the difficulties of the central Government and the difficulties in getting a local request met.
I hope the Minister and hon. and right hon. Members opposite will believe that I mean what I say. I want to plead with some fervour for the strengthening of this rather inchoate instrument of democracy. this means of giving effect to the grievances and needs of small people and small communities. If the Minister does not accept something on the lines of the second Amendment, then they are the people who will suffer. There will remain some right of recourse in connection with the railways, but that is a matter


which concerns the big people rather more than the small people.
Road carriage means most to the small people and the small communities and they are the ones who merit our protection from the big interests in road carriage. They need protection from the excessive use of any central power, but they have not many means of making themselves felt. After all the protestations made from the benches opposite about the small man, the small business, and so on, here we are taking away from them one right they have.
I hope this matter will be approached by the Committee not in any party spirit, not—if I may say so with all respect to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—in any tub-thumping spirit, but with a real appreciation of the needs which in the past have been met to some extent, which remain to be met, and for which we should have a higher regard.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: rose—

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Is there a possibility of a Scottish Member being heard in connection with the proposed Scottish Consultative Committee before the Minister winds up the debate?

The Chairman: The Front Bench Members are always called when they rise.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the rules of order will allow it, Sir Charles, as a Scottish Minister I am pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman for a few moments if he wishes to speak.

Mr. Manuel: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I hope I have not disturbed too much the arrangements that have been made. I shall be brief.
The Minister has explained that there is to be set up a new Scottish committee and Clause 28 says that the minutes of the Transport Users Consultative Committee are to be sent to the Minister. There is nothing to indicate what liaison there will be between the new committee which is to deal with the necessary integration of transport throughout Scotland and the Consultative Committee. What exactly is the relationship between the Consultative Committee and this new committee about which we have heard so much? Are they to get the minutes? How are they to deal with the complaints of users? We ought to he told something about that.
9.30 p.m.
The Consultative Committee is of special importance so far as Scotland is concerned. The Minister should consider very seriously the second point that was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), that if the Consultative Committee sends forward complaints and suggestions relating to private hauliers—possibly in remote areas, where there is no alternative form of transport and no safeguard for freight rates or fares—the Minister should take cognisance of them.
I have in mind particularly the Highlands and areas where there is only one form of travel, which is owned by one company. My right hon. and learned Friend made the plea that the Minister ought to have power to safeguard the users. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not stand aside and say that he has no power to direct the private interests in that connection.
As Minister of Transport, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible to the House as the custodian of publicly-owned transport throughout Britain. His whole tendency in connection with the Bill, and certain things I have heard him say, show that he is more concerned with privately-owned and operated transport than with his custodianship of publicly-owned transport. Surely, he does not think that publicly-owned transport has all the vices and privately-owned transport all the virtues. If he does, he should say so.
So far as Scotland is concerned, when the new committee is set up, what powers will it have to protect people in remote areas, particularly in the Highlands and rural areas, against too high freight rates and fares being charged? I make the plea that the Minister should reconsider whether he should not be able to give some direction to private transport as well as to public transport.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I did not realise when I gave way to the hon. Member that I was letting myself in for quite such a personal broadside, but I shall hope to deal quickly in sequence with one or two of the points that he made.
The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), who introduced three Amendments, said in conclusion that I could either reassure him if there was a reasonable answer, or, at


least, give him a convincing defence of the propositions. I can reassure him, I think, in regard to the first two Amendments. When I heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) I suspected that he knew what the Amendments would do, where as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to apprehend what the consequences would be.
There is, as the Committee knows, a Central Transport Users Consultative Committee. Under the chairmanship of Major Cadbury, it has done most useful and disinterested work, and I should like to thank them on my own behalf—I know that my predecessor from the Labour Party would do the same—for the work they have put in. Not the least of the problems that comes to them is the very difficult one of the closing of branch lines in country districts, which comes up to them through the area committees.
While we are all anxious that the railways should not be obliged to continue unremunerative routes when there is, or should be, available alternative transport to be offered, none the less we recognise that a lot of local interests, traditions and prides are at stake and that there ought to be some medium whereby they find expression. Those committees have, as I said, given very valuable advice.
Now, it has been represented to us that in Scotland and in Wales there is a compelling case for giving the same sort of privileges to these area committtees as the Central Transport Consultative Committee possesses The privileges are the right of direct access to the Minister to whom the reports go and with that direct access—here I would warn the hon. and learned Member—goes the power of the Minister to issue a direction based on the receipt of that information from the central committee. It is thought right, and I wholly share the view, that Scotland and Wales should have the same right as the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee have of direct access to the Minister, to whom they will send reports and he in his turn, if convinced of the need for some particular action, has the right to issue a direction to the authorities concerned. The Amendment would give the same right to all the area committees.

Mr. Woodburn: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, there is, as Burns says, one point still greatly dark; that is, what power has this Consultative Committee to deal with places which public transport no longer serves?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that Burns has something to say about that, but I was coming to the point in a few minutes. There are at the moment 11 area committees. If this Clause is agreed to, there will be nine area committees and Scotland and Wales will have area committees raised to a superior status. There does appear to us to be a particular case for Scotland and Wales having the same privileges as the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee.
I have discussed this matter with Major Cadbury and attended a meeting of the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee and put the considerations to them. We are anxious not to diminish the status of that central committee for reasons I will give, but we feel strongly that Scotland and Wales, quite apart from their national history and story, have particular transport problems, and it is not unreasonable that they should have the right of direct access.
If, as the right hon. and learned Member asked, the other nine area committees had the same rights, consider what it would involve. The Minister would receive reports from all these committees and they would come at the same time, I gather to the Central Consultative Committee. The Central Consultative Committee may make one recommendation to the Minister and the area committee might make another recommendation. The Minister might feel obliged to issue a direction to the area committee arising out of their complaint. The prospects of conflict in a body which exists in order to bring harmony in the areas and which is mainly to co-ordinate them are almost infinite and would in our view greatly diminish the value and prestige of the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee.
May I refer to the sort of people and interests represented? As the Committee know, Major Cadbury is the chairman and the Consultative Committee includes most eminent representatives of agriculture, commerce, shipping, labour, local authorities, transport and an independent member—I think they are all, in the most


important sense, independent—appointed by the Minister. I hope that it is accepted that the Minister is capable of such an appointment.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the Minister tell us whether any of the representatives on the Central Committee today are also on the Welsh and Scottish Committees?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In both cases they are, and it is proposed that the chairmen in Scotland and Wales should remain members of the Central Committee, as they are now, and that when reports come from those committees to me they should also go to the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee, who should pass on to me their comments on the reports. My power to issue a direction directly arising out of the Welsh or Scottish recommendations will remain undiminished. I do not think it would be a forward step to give each area committee, however important they are, a chance of direct access carrying with it in reverse the power of the Minister to give directions.
The hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) asked what would be the liaison between this committee—the Scottish Consultative Committee—and the proposed new committee, which I announced earlier in the course of debates on this Bill, relating to Scotland. What I said at the time, and I hope I may be pardoned for my repetition, is that we think it would be a good plan to have the chairman of the Scottish Consultative Committee also the chairman of the proposed new committee. In that way the closest possible liaison between the two bodies would exist, though I will come to the fact in a moment that their function is really rather different. I hope that that will at least reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the first two Amendments which he moved.
The third Amendment would, however, have a more substantial result. It would bring within the purview of this committee the road haulage industry and all passenger transport industry, whether publicly or privately owned. It would turn them into a continuous reviewing body of the transport needs or desires of the district.

Mr. D. Jones: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the

Committee, but an Amendment which has already been made in Clause 16 (8) does bring publicly-owned passenger services within it already.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know that very well. In fact, it was not an Amendment, it was part of the Clause. I was coming to that all in good time—and if Burns did not say that, he said something very like it.
If the Committee wish, I will deal with the two changes in the central committee consequent on the proposals in this Bill. There will be changes and in addition the purview of the committee will extend to the publicly-owned section of passenger transport. I will come in a moment to the reasons we cannot follow the suggestion in the Amendment and extend that to private passenger operators.
I said that I thought the last of the three Amendments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is based on a misunderstanding. It is not the function of this committee to be a continuous reviewing body from which will flow Ministerial directions, but to be a watchdog of the public on monopolies in their district—[Interruption.] Well, that was the purpose of the operation when they were set up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, they were set up at a time when there was one vast public monopoly created in the field of transport. We are feeling our way slowly—

Mr. Manuel: rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I cannot give way—

Mr. Manuel: But there is just one point—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have dealt very generously with the hon. Member—

Mr. Manuel: There is one point. Would they also be responsible for a private monopoly, for instance, the hauliers of West Scotland?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am coming to that—I shall run out of my Burns quotations shortly. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, they were set up in order to protect the public against a large-scale public monopoly. That was agreed by the Act of 1947. We are feeling our way both in this case and outside; because


people outside are discussing the matter and wondering how public control of this large-scale nationalised industry can be conducted without undue Parliamentary control and how to bring it back to a proper commercial competitive basis. This was one of the pieces of machinery devised—and we think wisely so—by our predecessors. But the purpose of this last Amendment would be to extend the scope of the committee to include first, road hauliers and second, private passenger operators—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I will deal with that.
The result of the provisions of this Bill is to take away from the Consultative Committee the power to inquire into recommendations about the road haulage activities of the Commission, because with the creation of the road haulage companies by the Commission, which they must do to retain sixth-fifths of their former railway holdings, they would pass from the purview of this committee. The justification for that is that there will be full competition in the field of road haulage, and where there is full competition the need for a body of this kind is not so apparent.
Now we pass to the field of passenger transport. What happens there? There is still a great degree of monopoly control in passenger transport, particularly in Scotland and East Anglia. Of the 14,000 passenger vehicles owned by the Commission, a very considerable number are grouped either in Scotland or in East Anglia. It is, in our view, appropriate that the Consultative Committee should be allowed to make recommendations about the use to which what is in part a public monopoly turns its resources.
9.45 p.m.
I say to the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central that Clause 16 (8)—which no doubt he had in mind in regard to, say. the S.M.T. services over a large part of Scotland— brings them wholly within the purview of the Committee. In our view it would be quite ineffective for the Minister to take powers of direction over other passenger operators, which would include municipalities. Imagine what would happen in the House of Commons if I, under this Amendment, issued a direction to a municipal authority on the recommendation of an area committee telling it to discontinue a service or to

halve or double its rates. The House of Commons would be adjourned almost overnight.
The general effect of the last of these Amendments would be enormously to increase the power of the Minister in a field where we think that it would be wrong to do so. I am gratified that, after seven days of debate on the Transport Bill, the Opposition are prepared to entrust me with these far wider powers. I am gratified, but I am afraid that I must decline the compliment.
Finally, the Committee will have noticed that in this Clause we insert after "Wales" the word "Monmouth." I am advised that this is to correct a drafting error in the 1947 Act. I wish so much that the task of this Government in the field of regeneration could always be confined to relatively small matters like that.

Mr. Callaghan: If the task of the present Government had been confined to repairing such small errors as that, we should not have wasted the last seven days in this way. It is a great pity that the Minister did not confine himself to clearing up points like that. He could have been usefully employed. It is as well that the voice of Scotland should have been heard twice this evening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clack-mannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) have both spoken.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire that when he refers to arrangements between the Front Benches he should realise that any arrangements entered into as far as I am concerned are for the purpose of discussing this Bill better and focussing the attention of the Committee on the greatest weaknesses and getting the maximum benefit for our own side out of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] What do hon. Gentlemen opposite think that the Minister does when he enters into discussion of this sort except try to get the best bargain for himself? If that is not the purpose of discussions, then there is no purpose at all and we might as well not enter into them.
We are discussing three Amendments. The first and second have been dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice).


The Minister has told us what his attitude is. This Clause provides for direct access by the Welsh and Scottish Consultative Committees to the Minister. As a Welsh Member, I should like to say something about that. I think that this is a useful minor advance. I think that it will make no practical difference because, as the Minister said, the chairmen of the Welsh and Scottish Committees today sit on the Central Transport Consultative Committee.
It is within my knowledge, and that of others who have seen the minutes of the committees, that in fact any point raised by the chairman of the Scottish Committee or the Welsh Committee is dealt with by the Central Committee. If the chairman of the Scottish Committee were to bring a matter before his colleague on the Central Committee and ask for it to be submitted to the Minister, it is within my knowledge—and I am sure that it is within the knowledge of the Minister—that that request would not be refused.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it a meaningless concession?

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend tries to introduce prejudice into the discussion. I was only uttering a perfectly objective statement, from which everyone can draw their own conclusions, but my right hon. Friend is entitled to ask whether, if every point that is put forward by the Scottish member of the Central Committee can now be forwarded to the Minister, that is a less advantage to Scotland or Wales than direct access to the Committee. He is entitled to ask the question, and, no doubt, Scottish opinion will give the answer to it. He knows perfectly well, as everybody knows, that this represents a very little advance.
However, it is a concession that may be of use to the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland, who has been scrambling vainly all through the discussion on this Bill to find something to say to the enraged Scottish populace in order to redeem his election pledges. I am sure he will flaunt this in his next election address, and much good may it do him, but, if he wishes to tell the truth, he will say that it makes very little difference.
As regards the next point, it is more substantial. and shows once again the

prejudice which the Minister consistently shows throughout this Bill, as we expected, in favour of the road hauliers as against the British Transport Commission, and against the consumer, too. What can possibly be the objection to saying that these Consultative Commit- tees, whose job it is to review transport facilities in any area or in a country like Scotland or Wales, should not also have the responsibility of reviewing the facilities provided by road hauliers? For the life of me, I simply cannot understand what is the objection of the Minister and hon. Members on the benches opposite to including these people in the review. It seems to us to be the most elementary logic and common sense.
After all, the British Transport Commission are to be subjected, and are subjected, as often as the Consultative Committees meet, to constant public scrutiny of their actions, to examination by the Consultative Committees, to a review of their services, so that consumer needs can be satisfied. What our Amendment asks is that the Transport Users Consultative Committees should be able to consider complaints that are made to them by members of the public about private road hauliers' services. Is there really in logic any reason why they should not have the same powers of review if complaints are made?
The Minister says, "Oh, but these Committees were only set up because of the monopolistic powers of the British Transport Commission, and this was to protect the public against those monopolistic powers." I am bound to say that I do not believe that, and, having been in, at any rate, part of the beginnings of the 1947 Act, I can say that they were not set up for this purpose at all. But, assuming that they were, I should have thought that the Minister, following his own arguments through, when he got rid of the monopoly, would also have abolished the Consumers' Consultative Committee, and would have relied upon the free competition which the party opposite believe is the answer to all our problems solving all the complaints that members of the public may have about the services rendered to them.
I say to the Minister that he ought, in logic, to do one of two things. Either he should bring in the road hauliers, and


also the British Electric Traction Company with its passenger services, into the review, so that they are placed alongside the British Transport Commission, or, alternatively, get rid of the Clause and leave the British Transport Commission as free as it will be under his proposals, the British Electric Traction Company and the private road hauliers to suffer complaints and to answer complaints through normal commercial methods.
No; the Minister once more wants to have it both ways. He wants to plant a barb into the British Transport Commission even where they have not got monopolistic powers, as they will not have once this Bill goes through, and, at the same time, to make it quite certain that his friends the road hauliers shall have no word of public criticism uttered against them on a Consultative Committee.

Mr. G. Wilson: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us to which B.E.T. company in Scotland he is referring?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not referring to any B.E.T. companies in Scotland, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they do not exist there. I am referring to that big empire which starts in Northumberland, Cumberland and Durham, stretches right through the Pennines, splits about Oxford, and goes southeastwards through Oxford, through the North Downs to the Maidstone and District and East Kent Car Companies, and south-westwards down to the National Bus Company in the west. I think that is a pretty good description of it on the spur of the moment, as I think the Minister will agree, and a good example of how monopoly operates.
I think the Minister is giving us a job after the next election. It seems even more clear that we shall have to take powers with regard to British Electric Traction in a way which we have not so far done. There are many features of this Bill which will give us that task. We want to see these transport Consultative Committees as the germ from which will spring the conception of road and rail transport integrated once more when the Labour Government are returned to power. We believe that if they were now given the power of review for all services, both public

and private, within their area it would help very considerably as a first step towards the integration which we propose shall take place once again after the next General Election which we shall win.
I suppose this is the last speech I shall make at this stage of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know that hon. Members opposite will be almost as relieved as I am to hear that. I shall conclude by saying to my right hon. Friends that I think we ought to divide on this particular Amendment in order to show the Minister that we do not believe he is being fair to the consumer or to one important State controlled body by placing burdens upon it which he is not prepared to place upon road hauliers. Because of that, I recommend my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.

The Chairman: Clause 28, page 36, line 41—

Mr. Angus Maude: rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

The Chairman: I would point out to hon. Members that this is only wasting the time available to the Committee.

Mr. Lindgren: We did not institute the Guillotine.

The Chairman: If an hon. Member rises to speak, and if he is called, he ought to be given a hearing.

Mr. Maude: Provided right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me to be heard, I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes. It seems perfectly clear to me that some answer ought to be made to the argument which has just been advanced by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It is quite simple—as did the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)— to advance arguments in favour of these Amendments by concentrating upon their comparatively innocuous feature and making no reference at all to the real sting in the tail.
It is perfectly easy to make a case by saying that the operations of private road hauliers ought to be subject to review in the same way as the operations of the


British Transport Commission are subject to review. But the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering made no mention at all of the powers of direction to the private road hauliers which are also included in the last of their Amendments. They know perfectly well that that is what they are trying to get through the Committee under the guise of a comparatively harmless series of Amendments; and it is precisely those powers of direction which make it impossible for us on this side of the Committee to accept the Amendments.
10.0 p.m.
At one time some objection was taken opposite to the words of the Minister that under this Bill we were now going to have the chance to watch public and private enterprise in free and fair competition with one another. Hon. Members opposite said that it will not be that at all, because in the long-distance road haulage the two forms of enterprise will not be directly competitive. If that is true there is no point whatever in the powers of direction called for under this Amendment. On the other hand, if they are directly competitive, let there be fair competition between public enterprise, with the Minister enabled to have direction over public enterprise, and private enterprise relying on competition in the interests of the consumer to give the consumer the fairest service.
It must obviously be State enterprise versus private enterprise. It is an intolerable situation if we are either going to remove the powers of the Minister to direct State enterprise in the interest of the public on the one hand, or to remove the freedom of free enterprise to give a competitive service on the other. In that case it is not fair competition at all between the two forms of enterprise. I hope that when the Committee decide on the merits of the Amendment they will look closely at the powers inserted in the last Amendment, to which hon. Members opposite have been careful not to refer in their speeches, and will reject it.

The Chairman: Clause 28, page 36, line 41—

Mr. Richard Fort: rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: On a point of order. Is it not a fact, Sir Charles, that you were on your feet reading the Amendment? This is the second occasion on which this has happened and an hon. Member opposite has risen to his feet. Is it within the rules of the House of Commons that they should be called in those circumstances?

The Chairman: I very often try to put the Question, but if hon. Members get up I am beaten.

Mr. P. Morris: Has it not been acknowledged by the Government on several occasions that the Guillotine is a penalty imposed upon the Opposition and that for that reason it is felt that the Government should give the Opposition every opportunity? Although there are several more Clauses the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) still wants to make the Guillotine more effective and deprive us of our opportunity.

The Chairman: That, of course, is not a point of order.

Mr. Fort: rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

The Chairman: Order. There is so much noise that the hon. Member cannot be heard. I called Mr. Fort.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. Surely it is the custom for the Opposition to wind up a debate of this kind and this debate has already been wound up.

The Chairman: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Mellish: Cannot you possibly control the debate, Sir Charles, so that we can come to a conclusion on this Clause?

The Chairman: I cannot stop speakers. I very often wish that I could.

Mr. Mitchison: Is there any means of making an hon. Gentleman behave like one?

Mr. Fort: If I may say it to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite if they had spent less than one and a half hours, as they have during the past seven, just talking about the use of the Guillotine, all of us would have had more time to discuss these matters.


As for the point which has just been made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) I am certainly not going to speak for 25 minutes. There is no question but that if hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to wind up the debate they will not be prevented by me. All I want to do is to ask one or two questions of those who have moved the Amendment— particularly in regard to the last one—so that we can know more clearly than we have so far where we stand on the matters which they have put before us and which might have been more convincing if they had explained them earlier.
The matter which concerns me, and to which I want to get an answer—
Mr. Norman Dodds (Dartford): Get on with it.

Mr. Fort: May I remind the hon. Gentleman who, curiously enough, is in order in speaking from his present position, that he is merely preventing his own people from winding up.

Mr. Dodds: Get on with it.

Mr. Fort: The hon. Gentleman is no more in order now than he was earlier. What I want to find out from the promoters of this Amendment is whether this is their last effort to torpedo the whole of this Bill. Have they introduced this in the last resort in order to prevent us carrying out our promises to the electorate at the General Election? May I have the attention of the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are merely cutting off their own time. May I have the attention of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)? Will he exercise his right to speak again and tell us and the country frankly—as he has been doing so often throughout this debate—whether this Amendment is the last effort of him and his supporters to torpedo the whole of this Bill?
We should like to know that—and I could have made the point a good many minutes ago if his supporters had given me a rather fairer hearing than they have.

Mr. Carr: rose—

Mr. Lindgren: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Is the hon. Gentleman rising to a point of order?

Mr. Lindgren: I thought you called me, Sir Charles.

The Chairman: I thought the hon. Member was speaking to a point of order. I had already called the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr).

Mr. Carr: I have already giver way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lindgren: The purpose of the Amendments having been explained, all I am concerned to do is to emphasise why those associated with Her Majesty's Government will not concede that the Amendments should be allowed.
The Government—and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen behind them who support them—do not want the public to have the right to challenge private enterprise in its operation of transport in any area. Neither the Minister nor a single hon. Member opposite has justified in any shape or form the fact that there should be two sets of rules, one which should govern the Commission and the other which should govern the private traders. If it is correct that the public ought to have a right to discuss recommendations made to the Minister about the services provided by the Commission, then surely the public, having been deprived of the Commission's services in buses and road haulage which are to be provided by private enterprise, ought to have a right to discuss and consider recommendations made to the Minister about these private services?
What the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are afraid of is public criticism of the services provided, and this matter is as vital as the reports of the Traffic Commissioners to the Minister about private enterprise under the 1933 Act. But the Government are afraid of public criticism of the services provided by private enterprise, and it is for that reason and that reason alone, that they oppose the acceptance of this Amendment.

Mr. Fort: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how a Consultative Committee can give a protection which competition and the licensing authority cannot give to the public?

Mr. Lindgren: First of all there is no competition. In many areas there will be none because, in fact, there is not a living for two people in it. If there are


two road hauliers in some of these places, within 12 months or two years they will amalgamate and in another 12 months or two years they will amalgamate with some other haulier lower down. The whole history of road haulage and passenger transport has been gradual amalgamations.

Mr. Carr: rose—

Mr. H. Morrison: I was inclined to give way to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) if he was not—

Mr. Carr: On a point of order. I gave way to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). When you, Sir Charles, called him I was on my feet, and I only gave way to enable you to put the Amendment. If the Amendment is not going to be put, I submit that I have a right to be called.

The Chairman: I have not called the hon. Member. I have not called anyone. I was trying to get the Committee to come to a decision.

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member for Mitcham—I have no right to dictate to him—is going to make a short speech I will give way to him, but I want to make some observations for ten minutes or so afterwards.

Mr. Carr: I shall not keep the Committee more than a few minutes, but on this Amendment I have been getting up on my feet right from the beginning because there is one point I want to make, which is a direct answer to the main theme of the argument that has come from the other side of the Committee. We heard it again from the hon. Member for Wellingborough just now, who said that our motives in this and other Clauses were actuated by giving a preference to the private sector as opposed to the public sector of transport.
That is missing the whole point and is not the basis of this action at all. The basis of our action and the reason for discrimination in the treatment of one from the other is not to prefer one sector, but to determine whether a sector is a monopoly or a competitive undertaking.
10.15 p.m.
In our opinion, the best protection for the consumer is competition. On the road haulage side we are instituting competitive conditions with the additional

safeguard of the licensing system, but on the railway side of the undertaking we have a monopoly condition. We are applying public control and public supervision where there is a monopoly, but not where there is competition to safeguard the consumer.
If proof were needed of that, it is surely given by the fact that my right hon. Friend is removing from the road haulage side of the Commission's work the supervision of the Consultative Committees. Our action has been taken not as the result of prejudice on one side or the other in relation to ownership but on the principle of whether monopoly or competitive conditions exist in a certain sector. That is the reason for the Clause, and that is why we are doing this this way.

Mr. H. Morrison: I rise to support the Amendment and to make some comments on this Committee stage which I think have some relationship to the Amendment. I do it, having read the speech of the present Home Secretary at the end of the Report stage of the Transport Bill, 1946, which was taken on the Floor, as distinct from the Committee stage which was held upstairs.
Our Amendment seems to us to be a matter of elementary justice. If it is the case that there are to be Consultative Committees which can investigate complaints by users and consumers of the transport services in the hands of the Commission, whether road commercial or road passenger services, it seems tor be a matter of the most elementary justice that the same considerations and facilities should be open to the public vis-à-vis privately-owned road commercial and road passenger transport. Yet that is not so under the Bill.
We must again call attention to the way in which Her Majesty's Government are treating a public authority, which, after all, has a prima facie case to be trusted more than private profit-seeking. undertakings, though I fully agree that, vis-à-vis the British Transport Commission and its ancillary undertakings, it is right that there should be opportunities for the users to complain and have their complaints investigated, for the committees to report to the Minister and for the Minister to have a power of direction arising out of those reports.


However, a public authority knows that it is answerable to the nation, that its affairs can be intimately debated by Parliament on its annual report, that any night on the Adjournment it may be debated during the precious half hour which is available to hon. Members, that in the case of the British Transport Commission it can be debated on the private Bills which it promotes from time to time, and that the Minister has power of general directions in various ways. All these facilities are open in respect of a public authority, but for the most part they are not open in respect of private road haulage or private road passenger undertakings.
In these circumstances, surely it is not unreasonable that similar facilities should be open to the public in the case of private undertakings as in the case of public authorities. The only reason I can think of for the Government's resistance to the Amendment is the one which has obtained throughout the proceedings on the Bill, namely, that the Government have a prejudice against public authorities and public undertakings and that the Conservative Party regards itself as the chosen instrument of private interests wherever private interests exist.
I think it would be a good thing if we could refer to one or all of these Consultative Committees, asking them to report on the Committee stage of the Bill. They could produce an interesting report on how far it has been possible for Parliament, as the guardian of the public interest, to discharge its responsibilities in respect of the public interest. I think the Consultative Committee would have had to report something on the following lines—that on Clause 1, which involves the Commission having to dispose of road haulage undertakings, only three Labour Amendments were moved, although there were 15 on the Paper; and that the time allowed for this vast proposal was between 3.45 p.m. and 8 p.m. I am strictly following the Home Secretary—very, very closely following him. I have read his speech with great interest and admiration, and I hope he will do the same with mine.
In Clause 2, which sets up the Disposal Board, and in which there was the same bias that we find in the attitude to

the Amendment which we are moving, we discussed the interests who are put on the Board—and public interest is inadequately represented. That discussion lasted only from 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. All the way through these Clauses, in many cases our Amendments have not been called or have not been debated because there was no time; the Closure fell on essential issues of high policy in the Bill, and the Committee has not been able adequately to discuss these essential issues.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. May I ask you, Sir Charles, whether the right hon. Gentleman is not now developing a speech on a Motion to report Progress? This has nothing to do with the Amendment.

The Chairman: I am allowing the right hon. Gentleman to do what I allowed the present Home Secretary to do in Standing Committee upstairs.

Mr. Morrison: Further to that point of order. I am basing my own procedure on the speech made on the Floor of the House on 30th April, 1947. It is true that that followed the Report stage, but there was no Committee stage on the Floor of the House on that occasion, so that this is analogous. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly it is. On that occasion the present Home Secretary reviewed the time available for various matters on the Report stage—and if he could do it then, I can do it now. I submit to you, Sir Charles, and to the Committee, including the majority opposite who have imposed this Guillotine upon us, that it is not too much to expect that in these last few minutes which remain at our disposal the Opposition should have an opportunity to review the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Fort: On a point of order. Could you, Sir Charles, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, for the sake of completion, he would enlarge on what he has said by telling the Committee the amount of time he gave to us in 1947 by comparison with the time which we have given to the Opposition for this Bill?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. Dealing with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I thought he was referring to the Standing Committee, of which I was Chairman. I was not


responsible for the Report stage. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not go very much wider.

Mr. Fort: rose—

Mr. Morrison: May I put it to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (MT. Fort) that he has already occupied some time which might fairly have been left to the Opposition? If he badly wishes to interrupt me, I will give way, but I think it would have been better had he left to the Opposition that time which he has already occupied.

Mr. Fort: Would the right hon. Gentleman, in fairness, tell the Committee the amount of time that was allowed to hon. Members now on this side of the House when they were upstairs in Opposition on the Committee stage, as compared with what has been allowed now?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman would be out of order if he did so.

Mr. Morrison: There are two answers to the hon. Gentleman. One is that it was more time than has been allowed on this Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, and—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. He made a definite statement of fact, and I know that the Committee wants to know the facts. In 1947, the average time given per page to the Bill was 35 minutes, compared with the 1952 average of 56 minutes—

The Chairman: I do not think we should pursue this matter. It has nothing to do with the present Bill.

Mr. Morrison: The question I was asked was the comparative time of the Committee stage on our Bill compared with this Bill. I say that the comparative time allowed for the Committee stage on our Bill was materially longer than the Committee stage allowed on this
Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what the hon. Gentleman asked me. The Minister, not content with his hon. Friend's losing my time, must jump in and lose some of my time as well. I gave a fair answer to the hon. Gentleman on the question he put to me. When the present Home Secretary made this speech in the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "On the Report stage."] It does

not matter. The principle still obtains—he was not subjected to a single interruption either from another hon. Member or from the Chair. Night after night we have been in the position we are in on this Amendment tonight, namely, our Amendments are not reached, Clauses are put through—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. Can you tell the Committee—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. A point of order is being put, and I cannot hear what it is.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can you tell the Committee, Sir Charles, whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman to desert all his arguments on the Amendment and to develop an argument in favour of a Motion to report Progress? Is it in order, is it apt, appropriate, and dignified, and according to our Parliamentary tradition for the right hon. Gentleman to leave his speech on this Amendment and to give my right hon. Friend no time to reply to the debate?

The Chairman: The point of order was unnecessary. We have only a minute to go and I hope we shall manage to contain ourselves for that time.

Mr. Morrison: The Minister has already replied, and therefore that point falls. Perhaps the noble Lord—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not so noble"]—in pursuance of his nobility will think up something else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] Well, it was effective, anyway. We have been endeavouring throughout the proceedings on the Bill—[Interruption.]Even the entry of the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—Hon. Gentlemen opposite are adding to the Guillotine by gagging in an effort to shout me down but I am going on with my speech. I can only say to the Prime Minister that I am glad
he has not been here—
It being half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 263.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Hannan, W.
Parker, J


Adams, Richard
Hargreaves, A.
Paton, J.


Albu, A. H.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Peart, T. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, S.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Porter, G.


Awbery, S. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Baird, J.
Hewitson, Capt M
Proctor, W T.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Bartley, P.
Holman, P.
Rankin, John


Bence, C. R.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Reeves, J.


Benn, Wedgwood
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Beswick, F.
Hughes, Emrys, (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Blyton, W. R.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Royle, C.


Boardman, H.
Janner, B.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Bowden, H. W.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Short, E. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brockway, A. F.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hll)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Snow, J. W.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, T. W (Merioneth)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Keenan, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Kenyon, C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Carmichael, J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Champion, A. J.
King, Dr. H. M
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Chapman, W. D.
Kinley, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Chetwynd, G. R
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Swingter, S. T.


Clunie, J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sylvester, G. O.


Coldrick, W.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Collick, P. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lewis, Arthur
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McInnes, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McLeavy, F.
Thornton, E. (Farnworth)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tomney, F.


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Viant, S. P.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Manuel, A. C
Wallace, H. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mayhew, C. P.
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Messer, F.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Ewart, R.
Mikardo, Ian
West, D. G.


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Field, W. J.
Monslow, W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fienburgh, W.
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Finch, H. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Follick, M.
Morley, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Foot, M. M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wigg, George


Forman, J. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Moyle, A.
Willey, F. T.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Gibson, C. W.
Murray, J. D.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Aberlillery)


Glanville, James
Nally, W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gooch, E. G.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Oldfield, W. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Oliver, G. H.
Winterbottem, Richard (Brightside)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Orbach, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, C. F.
Oswald, T.
Wyatt, W. L.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Yates, V. F.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paget, R. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paling, Rt, Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)



Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. Pearson and


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Pannell, Charles
Mr. Arthur Allen.


Hamilton, W. W.
Pargiter, G. A.








NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Molson, A. H. E.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Alport, C. J. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Godber, J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Gough, C. F. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Gower, H. R.
Nicholls, Harmer


Baldwin, A. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Banks, Col. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Barber, Anthony
Grimond, J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Barlow, Sir John
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nutting, Anthony


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Oakshott, H. D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Odey, G. W.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
O'Neill, Phetim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Heath, Edward
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Bishop, F. P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborne, C.


Black, C. W.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Partridge, E.


Bossom, A. C.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hinchinabrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Brains, B. R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hollis, M. C.
Pitman, I. J.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Holt, A. F.
Powell, J. Enoch


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Horobin, I. M
Profumo, J. D.


Bullard, D. G.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Raikes, H. V.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Redmayne, M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr N. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Butcher, H. W.
Hurd, A. R.
Renton, D. L. M.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Robertson, Sir David


Campbell, Sir David
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Robson-Brown, W.


Carr, Robert
Hyde, Lt.-Com. H. M.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Carson, Hon. E.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Channon, H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackleg)
Russell, R. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Keeling, Sir Edward
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Cole, Norman
Kerr, H. W.
Savory, Prot. Sir Douglas


Colegale, W. A.
Lambert, Hon. G
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lambton, Viscount
Scott, R. Donald


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Cranborne, Viscount
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Legh, P. R (Petersfield)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Crosthwait-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Crouch, R. F.
Linstead, H. N.
Snadden, W. McN.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Soames, Capt. C.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, R. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Low, A. R. W.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stevens, G. P.


Deedes, W. F.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
McKibbin, A. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Storey, S.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Maclean, Fitzroy
strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Drayson, G. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Summers, G. S.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas(Richmond)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Sutcliffe, H.


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, Maj Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncaslle)
Teeling, W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thomas, P. J. M (Conway)


Erroll, F. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fell, A.
Markham, Major S. F.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Fisher, Nigel
Marples, A. E.
Tilney, John


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Turner, H. F. L


Fort, R.
Maude, Angus
Turton, R. H.


Foster, John
Maudling, F.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fraser, Han. Hugh (Stone)
Maydon. Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Vosper, D. F.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Mellor, Sir John








Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
White, Baker (Canterbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Walker-Smith, D. C
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Wood, Hon. R.


Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
York, C.


Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)



Watkinson, H. A.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Wills, G.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Kaberry.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten o'Clock.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 29.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO COASTAL SHIPPING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 31.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO TRANSPORT ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.)

Amendment made: In page 39, line 7, at end, add:
(3) In the proviso to subsection (1) of section one hundred and eight of the Transport Act, 1947 (which provides that the confirmation of the Transport Arbitration Tribunal shall not be required in the case of an agreement for the payment of compensation under Part III of that Act to any person if the total amount of the compensation payable to him under the agreement does not exceed twenty thousand pounds) for the words "twenty thousand" there shall be substituted the words "one hundred thousand."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 32.—(REPEAL OF SECTION 7 AND SECTION 114 OF THE TRANSPORT ACT; 1947.)

Clause 33.—(ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.)

Clause 34.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Clause 35.—(SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND REPEALS.)

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSPORT ACT, 1947, REPEALED.)

Question put, "That this Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 260; Noes, 239.

Division No. 60.]
AYES
[10.42 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Maloalm


Alport, C. J. M.
Burden, F. F. A.
Drayson, G. B.


Amory, Heathooat (Tiverton)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Drewe, C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Campbell, Sir David
Dugdale, Rt. He. Sir T. (Richmond)


Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn, W.)
Carr, Robert
Duthie, W. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Carson, Hon. E.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Banks, Col. C,
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Barber, Anthony
Channon, H.
Erroll, F. J.


Barlow, Sir John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Fell, A.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Finlay, Graeme


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fisher, Nigel


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cole, Norman
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Colegate, W. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fort, R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Foster, John


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bevins, J. R. (Torteth)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Birch, Nigel
Cranborne, Viscount
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollak)


Bishop, F. P.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Black, C. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bossom, A. C
Crouch, R. F.
Godber, J. B.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gough, C. F. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gower, H. R.


Braine, B. R.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimond, J.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Deedes, W. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hall, John (Wyoombe)


Buehan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P G. T.
Dodds-Parker, A. D
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bullard, D. G
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.





Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr.J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Hay, John
Markham, Major S. F.
Scott, R. Donald


Heald, Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr, R.


Heath, Edward
Harpies, A. E.
Shepherd, William


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Higgs, J. M. C.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hill Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maude, Angus
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hill Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maudling, R.
Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Soames, Capt. C.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mellor, Sir John
Speir, R. M.


Hollis, M. C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Holt A. F.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stevens, G. P.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mott-Radclytfe, C. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Horebin, I. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Storey, S.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr, N. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hurd, A. R.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Summers, G. S.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (Eb'rgh W.)
Nutting, Anthony
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hyde, Lt,-Com. H. M.
Oakshott, H. D.
Teeling, W.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Odey, G. W.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Tilney, John


Keeling, Sir Edward
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Kerr, H. W.
Osborne, C.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Partridge, E.
Turton, R. H.


Lambton, Viscount
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Vosper, D. f.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Legh, P. R. (Peterafield)
Pitman, I. J.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt, Hon, A. T.
Powell, J. Enoch
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Linstead, H. N.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Longdon, Gilbert
Profumo, J. D.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Raikes, H. V.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Peter
Rayner, Brig, R.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)



Macdonald, Sir Peter
Redmayne, M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


McKibbin, A. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Wills, G.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Robertson, Sir David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robson-Brown, W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
York, C.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Roper, Sir Harold



MacLead, John (Roes and Cromarty)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Russell, R. S.
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Kaberry.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.




Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Adams, Richard
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Albu, A. H.
Burke, W. A.
Ewart, R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Fernyhough, E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Field, W. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Callaghan, L. J.
Fienburgh, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Carmichael, J.
Finch, H. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Champion, A. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington. E.)


Baird, J.
Chapman, W. D.
Follick, M.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Chetwynd, G. R
Foot, M. M.


Bartley, P.
Clunie, J.
Forman, J, C.


Bence, C. R.
Coldrick, W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bern, Wedgwood
Collick, P. H.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Benson, G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gailskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Beswick, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gibson, C. W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Crosland, C. A. R.
Glanville, James


Bing, G. H. C.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gooch, E. G.


Blackburn, F.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Ressendale)


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Deer, G.
Grey, C. F.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dodds, N. N.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Brockway, A. F.
Dugdale, Rt.Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hale, Leslie







Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Manuel, A. C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Snow, J. W.


Hannan, W.
Messer, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hargreaves, A.
Mikardo, Ian
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mitchison, G R.
Sparks, J. A.


Hastings, S.
Monslow, W
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morley, R.
Swingler, S. T


Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Hewitson,Capt. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hobson, C. R.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Mulley, F. W.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Houghton, Douglas
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Nally, W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hynd, J. B. (Attereliffe)
Oliver, G. H.
Thornton, E.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Orbach, M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Irving, W. J. (Wood Grean)
Oswald, T.
Tomney, F.


Janner, B.
Padley, W. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Viant, S. P.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pannell, Charles
Weitzman, D.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Parker, J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paton, J.
West, D. G.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Peart, T. F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Popplewell, E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Keenan, W.
Porter, G.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Kenyon, C.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wigg, George


King, Dr. H. M.
Proctor, W. T.
Wiloock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Kinley, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rankin, John
Willey, F. T.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reeves, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lewis, Arthur
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Logan, D. G.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huylon)


MacColl, J. E.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


McInnes, J.
Ross, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Royle, C
Wyatt, W. L.


McLeavy, F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Yates, V. F.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Short, E. W.



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman Sydney (Nelson)
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The Chairman: I apologise to the Committee because when I put the Questions on Clauses 28 to 35, I missed out Clause 30. With the kind permission of the Committee, may I put it now?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am sure that the Committee will wish to oblige you, Sir Charles; I am not a bit surprised, in view of the scandalous way in which this Bill has been dealt with.

Orders of the Day — Clause 30.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL.)

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday, 20th January; and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Select Committee appointed to consider in what respects the existing procedures, by which the control of this House over delegated legislation is exercised, need to be improved or supplemented and by what means this can best be achieved: Mr. J. J. Astor, Sir Edward Boyle, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Ede, Mr. John Edwards, Lieut.-Colonel Elliot, Mr. Erroll, Mr, Leslie Hale, Sir Austin Hudson, Mr. Godfrey Nicholson, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Frederick Willey and Mr. Woodburn: Power to send for persons, papers and records; and to report from time to time: Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Drewe.]

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of South-well. [copy presented, 15th December], approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]

Orders of the Day — QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

10.53 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I wish to raise a matter of Privilege. My complaint arises from a message—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that Mr. Speaker will be here in a moment. He no doubt has been advised. He knows about this matter and I do not. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) who has the Adjournment might carry on until Mr. Speaker arrives. It would be much more satisfactory.

Mr. F. J. Erroll: rose—

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. As long as I am assured that my rights are fully protected and that I can raise this matter before the House, with respect, I agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not prejudicing his chance of raising it at the first opportunity. It would be better to wait until Mr. Speaker comes because he understands this matter and I do not.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: If my hon. Friend wishes, and feels it is his duty, to raise a question of Privilege or a point of order with the Chair, is he not entitled—indeed, is it not his duty—to raise it at the first convenient opportunity? If he desires to raise it now, is there any reason why the whole House should wait until the end of the Adjournment debate, so that it is discussed under the worst possible conditions? I understand that my hon. Friend has a most important point to raise.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker will be here in one moment. It would be much better if he dealt with this matter. He knows about it. I knew there was a point of great importance to be dealt with, but I am not prepared to deal with it because I have not been briefed. If the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale begins his speech and gives way when Mr. Speaker arrives, it would be more satisfactory to everybody.

Mr. Wigg: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of Privilege. My complaint arises from a message from Nairobi which has appeared in part in London newspapers this afternoon and which was printed on the tape at 3.8 p.m. The message read as follows:
Kenya Supreme Court considers alleged contempt
and the date is "Nairobi, Thursday."
The question of whether Mr. D. N. Pritt, Q.C. should be committed for contempt of court was today being considered by Kenya's Supreme Court under the Presidency of Sir Richard Hearne, Chief Justice. A record of the proceedings of the Kapenguria Court, which is trying Jomo Kenyatta and five other defendants on charges of managing Mau Mau, was handed to Sir Richard today. Mr. Pritt is leading defence counsel in the case. At Kapenguria on Tuesday Mr. Thacker, the magistrate, adjourned the hearing for 15 days on the ground that Mr. Pritt had used words in a cable to four British Labour M.Ps. which the magistrate regarded as contempt of court.
I would add that the cable which Mr. Pritt sent was in answer to a cable signed by my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock (Miss Lee), Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), and myself, which referred to a Question put by the hon. Member for Gravesend and answered by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 10th December.
Our cable read as follows:
Lyttelton says 'apart from application about the venue Pritt made only one protest about facilities and said he was satisfied with arrangements made as a result.' Please confirm.
I bring this matter to your attention now as being the earliest possible opportunity of submitting that a breach of Privilege has occurred, and I shall be glad if you will indicate whether it would be convenient for me, and in order, to make a detailed submission to you when the House meets tomorrow, when I respectfully request that you will rule that a prima facie case of breach of Privilege has been made out.

Mr. Speaker: I rule that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter at the first available opportunity. He had better raise it again tomorrow and we will deal with the matter then.

Orders of the Day — ANGLO-BRAZILIAN TRADE

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: rose—

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: On a point of order. I do not think that the Question, "That this House do now adjourn," was in fact put from the Chair. I raise that matter so that no time should be lost to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll).

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Adjournment Motion has been moved.

Mr. Erroll: I started to speak a moment before and I had hoped that I was going to have a very much larger audience for my speech than is normally the case. However, you fortunately came to my rescue, Mr. Speaker, and I see that the subject of my Adjournment debate has more than satisfactorily emptied the Chamber, as is customary when I get up to speak. However, I welcome this opportunity of referring to certain matters in connection with Anglo-Brazilian trade, as they are of great importance both to this country and to Brazil.
It is no secret that Brazil's external trade is in a very parlous state. Brazil is not only in debt to this country to the extent of some £52 million, but is also in debt to Germany to the extent of nearly £30 million, and to the United States to the extent of some £125 million in sterling equivalent. This indebtedness has arisen as far as this country is concerned largely through Brazil's failure to sell her current cotton crop to Great Britain. The reason why the Raw Cotton Commission has not hitherto bought any part of the current cotton crop is because the price Brazil is asking is much higher than the prevailing world price for her type of cotton.
It is against this background that we must examine the proposed barter deal which has received such wide publicity in the Press of this country. Briefly, the deal consists of an arrangement whereby the Hawker Siddeley Group would, through the Gloster Company, sell some

50 to 70 Gloster Meteor jet aircraft to Brazil, and in return the Raw Cotton Commission would purchase correspondingly large quantities of Brazil's at present unsold cotton crop. In other words, it is a barter of aeroplanes for raw cotton.
In effect, it means that this particular exporter is getting the right to pre-empt his earnings of foreign currency in favour of a particular importer—namely, the Raw Cotton Commission; and my first question to the Economic Secretary is whether this is a satisfactory type of transaction, because I submit it represents an entirely new principle in our post-war foreign trade. It means an important change in our system of exchange control if barter deals of this character are to be permitted now and in the future.
Referring particularly to this deal, I would like to query whether it is satisfactory. To begin with, it is not, in fact, a very nice way of going on. It may be just legal. It may be that the Hawker Siddeley group have found an ingenious way round our foreign exchange control regulations, but it is surely not a transaction of which either of the English contracting parties need feel particularly proud. It is, in fact, the shabbiest type of commercial transaction, because these two have stolen a march over British traders who have been in this business for many years—some of them for more than a generation. They now find they are unable to get payment for the goods they have sent to Brazil, and they find this comparative newcomer to the Brazilian market jumping in ahead with a type of transaction which is anything but satisfactory.
It is particularly unfortunate that a commercial practice of this sort should be on the point of going through when it has been made by a semi-Government body, the Raw Cotton Commission, and an aircraft organisation which is so largely dependent on Government orders. Therefore, it has got no small part of its prosperity as a result of Government orders, which are placed with it. I put it to the House that the Treasury could surely stop this transaction from going through if they wanted to.
A number of Questions have been asked in the House in the last few weeks, and the indications given in the answers are that the Government do not intend to do anything about it, because they have


no powers to interfere. I suggest that if the Government wanted to stop this transaction they could soon find a way of doing it, and it is in the interests of all concerned that this transaction should not be proceeded with. I say that deliberately, because the case may be put forward that a transaction of this sort might perhaps make a contribution towards the permanent solution of the Anglo-Brazilian trading difficulties, and I think, if that were to be the case, we might condone this particular transaction in this case, but in actual fact this transaction, if it goes through, will do nothing to help the future and would only reduce the chances of the Brazilian debt ever being cleared.
Individual traders of this country are concerned in this matter, and many of us have received details from those who have taken the trouble to write to us. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson), if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye, will refer particularly to the difficulties in Liverpool and Manchester. I want to refer to an organisation which is hit far harder than any private trader, namely, the Export Credit Guarantees Department, because they are liable to the extent of no less than £32 million in respect of guarantees given for Brazilian exports which have not been paid off.
It is, therefore, of tremendous importance that the Treasury should seek a permanent solution of the Anglo-Brazilian trading difficulties, and not be a party to the barter transaction which is going to do nothing in making a contribution towards a permanent solution. How is the Treasury proposing to clear this liability of the Export Credit Guarantees Departments of £32 million becoming due in the course of the next 12 months? Is it, in fact, the case that the British taxpayer is going to have to foot the bill? If so, it will be almost as big as that which the British public had to pay for the ill-fated groundnut scheme.
I cannot understand why such a large figure as that should have developed. Why did the Export Credit Guarantees Department not raise its rates as the amount of risk grew? It may be that the Treasury told them not to raise their rates. It may have been part of Government policy to keep the rate the same, or to go on happily with the same rate and the amount of risk rapidly growing month by month, with the knowledge

that the British taxpayer would have to foot the bill at the end if the trading indebtedness continued.
It seems to me possible that perhaps some of the Brazilian blocked sterling balances might be used in order to clear this debt. I find it very hard to ascertain the exact amount of the blocked sterling balances. I am told there is still a substantial blocked balance in some account. I shall be glad to be corrected in that matter if I am wrong, because it has received some currency in the newspapers. It would be a great advantage if we could be told that there is, in fact, no such reserve of blocked sterling. I hope that whatever is considered by the Treasury, there will be no question of some sort of loan to Brazil to try and provide a solution for this dilemma, because any spare cash we may have in this country ought to go first for Commonwealth development rather than pay off the debts of Brazil which she ought to try and do herself.
Could the Minister tell us if the Treasury will sanction this kind of barter deal, and if so, whether the Government are to permit barter deals of this kind in general? That would represent a new development in our system of exchange control, where the taxpayer is to havtto pay £32 million to the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Finally, can the Minister in his reply give us any indication about the Brussels indebtedness now and in the future, and say what the prospects are for the future of Anglo-Brazilian relations, because many people are worried about it?

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and enjoy a little time to say a word. I do not want to prolong the discussion and so deprive the Parliamentary Secretary of the chance to say all the useful and helpful things he is to say.
My concern about the deal to which my hon. Friend has referred is that we have had for 13 months a situation developing in trade between this country and Brazil, namely from November, 1951, till today, during which the accumulated indebtedness has reached the proportions that my hon. Friend has described. So far as I can discover, there has been no


dynamic approach by the Treasury or the Board of Trade to get a solution to this growing, real and urgent problem.
The Department will have to pay £30 million and private traders will have to pay a sum nearly as great unless a settlement is reached between this country and Brazil. I have been told that the difficulty is that we cannot find a medium to buy Brazil's native production—cotton, hides, and coffee—at satisfactory prices because Brazil did not devalue her currency when we devalued ours. The significance of the cotton deal is that in exchange for 70 aeroplanes we would get 32 million 1b. of raw cotton. Surely it is not beyond the bounds of the ingenuity of the Treasury to translate that cotton into terms of sterling against the price that will be put into the books for the 70 aeroplanes. Once we have established a rate of exchange of that kind we have opened the door to negotiation.
I do not suppose that all our troubles would then be over, in settling this impressive backlog of economic indebtedness. Trade between the two countries which reached more than £62 million in 1951, has withered and died in 1952 at the very time when we need trade. It is a matter of the greatest urgency for Her Majesty's Government to send the most capable representatives over to Brazil or to the Brazilian representatives in this country, and to say, "Here we are, two great and friendly nations with a common problem which is a burden and a weight upon them. Is it not possible and practicable for the two sides to get together and sort it out in the interests of both?"
In these few headline sentences I have said what I feel about this matter. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take this opportunity, at this season of good will and charity, to tell us all the things we want to happen.

11.15 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): I would not like the House to have the impression that Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the importance and the seriousness of this matter. It would be quite untrue to suppose that no action has been taken at all to try to meet the situalion. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said recently,

we have applied our minds to possible solutions of what is a very difficult problem; because it must be remembered that all problems of trade are two-way, and both parties must agree if there is to be a solution. Where the problem is one of accumulated debt, the liability to reach agreement is as much on the debtor as on the creditor; and it is known that there are very large commercial debts owing to this country from Brazil and, I believe, to the United States and Germany.
My hon. Friend who raised this subject confined himself, however, to the narrower point of barter trade and particularly to this agreement for the sale of jet aircraft and the purchase of cotton. So, I will confine myself mainly to the barter trade and this particular deal. The first point is that this was a transaction between a private enterprise undertaking and an independent statutory body. The Raw Cotton Commission is an independent statutory body and the aircraft company is a private enterprise concern, and the extent to which the Government can, or should, intervene in the normal commercial activities of private companies is considerably limited.
My hon. Friend says the Treasury are a party to this transaction, but the Treasury never has been, and I do not see how it ever will be, because this is not a transaction affecting the Government. I should point out that, being a private transaction, I have not a detailed knowledge of the exact terms of it, but this type of transaction does not infringe the exchange control regulations.
My hon. Friend talks of the exporters hypothecating foreign exchange earnings to a particular country, but the position is that the exporter of British goods to Brazil receives payment in Brazilian currency by transfer of Brazilian held sterling. The transfer to a United Kingdom resident account extinguishes a given amount of Brazilian held sterling, and the sum accrues, in that sense, to the British Treasury. The exporter has no control whatever over any foreign exchange. He would receive payment by transfer from a Brazilian account to his account in this country, and he is perfectly entitled to transfer that sterling to a United Kingdom resident who, in this case, is the Raw Cotton Commission.
The Commission receives sterling from the export, and obtains cruzeiros with


which to purchase cotton in the normal way, because it is entitled to purchase non-sterling cotton up to a certain amount annually and it is entitled to foreign currency in order to buy it. So, infringement of foreign exchange control does not enter into the matter at all.
Then, my hon. Friend says that if the Government wanted to stop this transaction it could do so. It is all very well for him to say that, but I hope that we shall not get into the position where a Government, of whatever colour, can stop something simply because it does not like it. As the President of the Board of Trade said recently, the only question open for the Government to decide here is, first, whether export licences for these aircraft should be refused, and, secondly, whether a direction should be issued to the Raw Cotton Commission to prevent the purchase of this cotton.
So far as the export licence question is concerned, export licensing is now confined to a very small area of our trade, and I am sure that I have my hon. Friend with me in saying that it is desirable that any form of exporting licensing should he confined as narrowly as possible and should be designed solely to protect the interests of our national security by preventing the export of goods vital to our security to countries with whom our relations are not as friendly as they could be and which, if they made use of those exports, would be to the detriment of this country's security. It would be a great mistake if we should try to extend the grounds on which licences are refused in any way beyond the narrow compass to which they are at present confined.
Then there is the question of the Raw Cotton Commission. I think it very doubtful whether my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would in any case have power to issue a direction to them in this matter, but, whether or not he has this statutory power, it seems undesirable that this Government should interfere with the operation of the statutory Raw Cotton Commission, which is carrying out a commercial task and a statutory duty of providing cotton for Lancashire spinners at the lowest possible price they can obtain and which at the same time is facing competition from

spinners importing on private account under the new arrangements now effective.
On both grounds, on the question of whether export licences could or should be refused, or a direction could or should be issued to the Raw Cotton Commission, my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that there was no ground on which he should intervene in this transaction which, I would emphasise, is a transaction which is not in any shape or form a Government transaction. That is not to say that this type of barter transaction is the kind of thing Her Majesty's Government would like to see developed. We do not agree that it is in the long-term interests of British trade that transactions of this kind should occur, and if we make a barter agreement we might find ourselves forced into more and more.
We have made it perfectly clear that we believe in the widest possible agreement on multilateral trade and should not enter into bilateral agreements which in general are wholly contrary to our general policy. Of course that does not mean that in certain circumstances there are not advantages in individual dealings. In this particular case it is fair to point out that except by means of this agreement the Raw Cotton Commission would not have been able to purchase on acceptable terms the 15,000 tons of Brazilian cotton which will be available to Lancashire spinners as a result and the aircraft company would not have been able to export the aircraft which help to develop their manufacturing capacity. So there are obviously certain advantages from the national point of view in this field.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: My hon. Friend said earlier that this was not a barter agreement and then said that if we have one barter agreement it is followed by another. Does he confirm that it is not a barter agreement or the first of a series?

Mr. Maudling: This is in the nature of a barter agreement but does not involve any infraction of exchange control. There are definite quantities involved in the transaction. The Government fully appreciate the feelings of traders who have exported goods to Brazil over a long period, and have outstanding debts of a considerable size, and who feel, as hon.


Members have pointed out, that the people concerned in this field have jumped the queue. I see their point of view and can sympathise with it, but, as I have said, there is nothing illegal or improper about this transaction, nor anything which could cause Her Majesty's Government to intervene.
On the wider subject of our trade with Brazil, as I have said, this is undoubtedly a serious problem. A very large debt has accrued from Brazil to traders in this country, and, indeed, to other countries as well. It is very important to all concerned that the long-established friendship and trading relations between Brazil and this country should be restarted and re-started as soon as possible.
Obviously, there are great practical difficulties in the matter, but I think it is only fair to point out that any extension of credit in the financial position of this country is a matter of some difficulty. In so far as we extend credit, we are, in fact, investing capital, if only for a short time, and, in so far as we invest capital in Brazil, we cannot invest it in the British Empire. This is one of the complexities of a situation which we are studying with great care, and which we, on our part, would very much like to see solved on a satisfactory basis.
The other point raised, which was not entirely germane to the principal matter

of this debate, was the position of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in this matter. I am sure my hon. Friend would not expect me to make any statement on the position that has been reached. Obviously, we shall be hearing more about it in the House of Commons at a later stage, but it is only fair to say that the Export Credits Guarantee Department is, in fact, an insurance business, and it is a pretty poor form of insurance business that never meets a claim. That is the only comment I want to make on the matter of principle this evening. It is a complex subject which the House would like to discuss at a later stage.
May I sum up what I have said by emphasising, first, that the Government do not in any way under-estimate the importance or urgency of the difficulties that have arisen up to now in the trade between this country and Brazil, and they are studying closely any possible solution of the problem. So far as the individual barter deal which was the subject of the debate is concerned, it is not in any way an improper or illegal deal, does not in any way involve Her Majesty's Government, and is not, therefore, a deal which the Government have any power to prevent, even if they wished to do so.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.